<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_2057200</id>
	<title>ARM Stealthily Rising As a Low-End Contender</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256720400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"InfoWorld's Neil McAllister examines how the ongoing rise of netbooks, decline of desktops, and the smartphone explosion are reconfiguring the processor market, putting <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/hardware/arm-vs-atom-battle-next-digital-frontier-762">Intel's Atom processor on a clear collision course with ARM</a>. And here, on the low end of computing, Intel may have finally met its match. Thanks to a unique licensing model, ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year, and the catalog of OSes and apps available for ARM has been growing for decades, including several <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/07/1156249/ARM-Powered-Linux-Laptops-Unveiled-At-Computex?art\_pos=4">complete Linux distributions</a> such as <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/04/25/183245/First-AndroidARM-Netbook-To-Cost-250-Maker-Says?art\_pos=5">Google's Android OS</a> and <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/08/0953238/Google-Announces-Chrome-OS-For-Release-Mid-2010?art\_pos=2">Chrome OS when it ships</a>. 'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/microsoft-leave-smartbooks-google-927">Windows</a>,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/shape-coming-netbook-revolution-809">the low end of the netbook market</a>. And yet Intel's bet on Windows and its x86 compatibility appeal among developers could backfire, McAllister writes. In the end, it's all about performance. Thus far, Intel has yet to demonstrate a model with <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139640/ARM\_unveils\_chip\_to\_make\_smartphones\_faster\_cooler">power characteristics</a> comparable to those of the current generation of ARM chips, which are fast proving their <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/hardware/in-bid-upstage-intel-arm-boosts-processor-speed-936">ability to handle high-performance applications</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Neil McAllister examines how the ongoing rise of netbooks , decline of desktops , and the smartphone explosion are reconfiguring the processor market , putting Intel 's Atom processor on a clear collision course with ARM .
And here , on the low end of computing , Intel may have finally met its match .
Thanks to a unique licensing model , ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year , and the catalog of OSes and apps available for ARM has been growing for decades , including several complete Linux distributions such as Google 's Android OS and Chrome OS when it ships .
'One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows, ' McAllister writes , something that could ultimately stymie ARM 's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market .
And yet Intel 's bet on Windows and its x86 compatibility appeal among developers could backfire , McAllister writes .
In the end , it 's all about performance .
Thus far , Intel has yet to demonstrate a model with power characteristics comparable to those of the current generation of ARM chips , which are fast proving their ability to handle high-performance applications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister examines how the ongoing rise of netbooks, decline of desktops, and the smartphone explosion are reconfiguring the processor market, putting Intel's Atom processor on a clear collision course with ARM.
And here, on the low end of computing, Intel may have finally met its match.
Thanks to a unique licensing model, ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year, and the catalog of OSes and apps available for ARM has been growing for decades, including several complete Linux distributions such as Google's Android OS and Chrome OS when it ships.
'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market.
And yet Intel's bet on Windows and its x86 compatibility appeal among developers could backfire, McAllister writes.
In the end, it's all about performance.
Thus far, Intel has yet to demonstrate a model with power characteristics comparable to those of the current generation of ARM chips, which are fast proving their ability to handle high-performance applications.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906081</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...</p></div><p>Actually, it can. All the developer needs to do, is recompile for ARM, and link to different libraries. (The WinCE ones.)</p><p>But the more important thing is: What are the main holdbacks that lets people use Windows.<br>1. Games: Don't run on these small systems anyway. I've seen enough people, meaning "Flash games" when they say "games". And those work on Linux.<br>2. "My very specific app": = lack of being informed about Wine, and the great alternatives that exist for Linux<br>3. Being used to what you always used: With KDE and Gnome imitating every single shitty aspect of Windows, most people you ask on the street (there was a video about that) won't know KDE4 from Win7 anyway. Re-label the items in the "start" menu (eg "OOo Writer" to "Microsoft Word"), and they won't have any trouble switching.</p><p>It's mostly not being used to how you get support anyway. If the average Luser knows about e.g. the Gentoo Forums, IRC and Bugzilla, he gets through without problems. Besides: What are friends for? ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can not run the same applications as windows , therefore it 's not windows...Actually , it can .
All the developer needs to do , is recompile for ARM , and link to different libraries .
( The WinCE ones .
) But the more important thing is : What are the main holdbacks that lets people use Windows.1 .
Games : Do n't run on these small systems anyway .
I 've seen enough people , meaning " Flash games " when they say " games " .
And those work on Linux.2 .
" My very specific app " : = lack of being informed about Wine , and the great alternatives that exist for Linux3 .
Being used to what you always used : With KDE and Gnome imitating every single shitty aspect of Windows , most people you ask on the street ( there was a video about that ) wo n't know KDE4 from Win7 anyway .
Re-label the items in the " start " menu ( eg " OOo Writer " to " Microsoft Word " ) , and they wo n't have any trouble switching.It 's mostly not being used to how you get support anyway .
If the average Luser knows about e.g .
the Gentoo Forums , IRC and Bugzilla , he gets through without problems .
Besides : What are friends for ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...Actually, it can.
All the developer needs to do, is recompile for ARM, and link to different libraries.
(The WinCE ones.
)But the more important thing is: What are the main holdbacks that lets people use Windows.1.
Games: Don't run on these small systems anyway.
I've seen enough people, meaning "Flash games" when they say "games".
And those work on Linux.2.
"My very specific app": = lack of being informed about Wine, and the great alternatives that exist for Linux3.
Being used to what you always used: With KDE and Gnome imitating every single shitty aspect of Windows, most people you ask on the street (there was a video about that) won't know KDE4 from Win7 anyway.
Re-label the items in the "start" menu (eg "OOo Writer" to "Microsoft Word"), and they won't have any trouble switching.It's mostly not being used to how you get support anyway.
If the average Luser knows about e.g.
the Gentoo Forums, IRC and Bugzilla, he gets through without problems.
Besides: What are friends for?
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29912847</id>
	<title>ReactOS on ARM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ReactOS is a Windows clone currently being ported to ARM</p><p>http://www.reactos.org/en/newsletter\_37.html</p><p>So what does ARM need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ReactOS is a Windows clone currently being ported to ARMhttp : //www.reactos.org/en/newsletter \ _37.htmlSo what does ARM need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ReactOS is a Windows clone currently being ported to ARMhttp://www.reactos.org/en/newsletter\_37.htmlSo what does ARM need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902869</id>
	<title>Windows is too expensive for ARM</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1256725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows it costs an ARM and a LEG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows it costs an ARM and a LEG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows it costs an ARM and a LEG.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903427</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1256728440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's only stealthy to someone who has not been paying attention and/or did not know that embedded processors outsell desktop and server processors by more than 10 to 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only stealthy to someone who has not been paying attention and/or did not know that embedded processors outsell desktop and server processors by more than 10 to 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only stealthy to someone who has not been paying attention and/or did not know that embedded processors outsell desktop and server processors by more than 10 to 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902575</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still, competitors claim it's mostly 'armless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , competitors claim it 's mostly 'armless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, competitors claim it's mostly 'armless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903129</id>
	<title>Who cares about Windows?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1256727060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if there was a Windows port, if you cannot run the vast set of Windows applications a port is useless. You would be better off running a Linux distro since it effortlessly comes with most categories of apps people need, because said apps are open source and usually can be recompiled fairly easily. If most Windows applications were targeted at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET by now I could see a point, but they are not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if there was a Windows port , if you can not run the vast set of Windows applications a port is useless .
You would be better off running a Linux distro since it effortlessly comes with most categories of apps people need , because said apps are open source and usually can be recompiled fairly easily .
If most Windows applications were targeted at .NET by now I could see a point , but they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if there was a Windows port, if you cannot run the vast set of Windows applications a port is useless.
You would be better off running a Linux distro since it effortlessly comes with most categories of apps people need, because said apps are open source and usually can be recompiled fairly easily.
If most Windows applications were targeted at .NET by now I could see a point, but they are not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859</id>
	<title>I'm running Windows on ARM *right now*</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1256725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as the application is concerned, the only difference between Windows CE and Windows NT is the APIs exposed. The calling sequence is the same, the library structure is the same, the IDE is the same, the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.</p><p>Given the variety of APIs exposed to applications running under Linux on ARM (two different Java runtimes, as well as the native UNIX APIs and X11), the differences to the application between Windows CE on my iPaq and Windows on my desktop are less than the difference between Android and Familiar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as the application is concerned , the only difference between Windows CE and Windows NT is the APIs exposed .
The calling sequence is the same , the library structure is the same , the IDE is the same , the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.Given the variety of APIs exposed to applications running under Linux on ARM ( two different Java runtimes , as well as the native UNIX APIs and X11 ) , the differences to the application between Windows CE on my iPaq and Windows on my desktop are less than the difference between Android and Familiar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as the application is concerned, the only difference between Windows CE and Windows NT is the APIs exposed.
The calling sequence is the same, the library structure is the same, the IDE is the same, the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.Given the variety of APIs exposed to applications running under Linux on ARM (two different Java runtimes, as well as the native UNIX APIs and X11), the differences to the application between Windows CE on my iPaq and Windows on my desktop are less than the difference between Android and Familiar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903829</id>
	<title>The monopoly was always Wintel</title>
	<author>Britz</author>
	<datestamp>1256730900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither Microsoft nor Intel had it. The perfect monopoly was always the duo. Both of them. Hence it was called Wintel by many in the industry. And AFAIR Intel was really up there with Microsoft when it came to playing hardball with the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither Microsoft nor Intel had it .
The perfect monopoly was always the duo .
Both of them .
Hence it was called Wintel by many in the industry .
And AFAIR Intel was really up there with Microsoft when it came to playing hardball with the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither Microsoft nor Intel had it.
The perfect monopoly was always the duo.
Both of them.
Hence it was called Wintel by many in the industry.
And AFAIR Intel was really up there with Microsoft when it came to playing hardball with the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29909617</id>
	<title>Re:ARM == Hype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The thing I DON'T understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so?"</p><p>because x86IsDying(TM), and that will bring the YearOfLinuxDesktop(TM). Somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The thing I DO N'T understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so ?
" because x86IsDying ( TM ) , and that will bring the YearOfLinuxDesktop ( TM ) .
Somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The thing I DON'T understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so?
"because x86IsDying(TM), and that will bring the YearOfLinuxDesktop(TM).
Somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903109</id>
	<title>Re:Windows is fading into the background</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1256726940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say WAY more people care about if their apps will run then care about if they can work for 12 hours on battery. Seriously, I've never been away from a plug more than about 4 hours except when in the backwoods camping. Even on transatlantic flights I can get a power plug to keep my laptop running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say WAY more people care about if their apps will run then care about if they can work for 12 hours on battery .
Seriously , I 've never been away from a plug more than about 4 hours except when in the backwoods camping .
Even on transatlantic flights I can get a power plug to keep my laptop running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say WAY more people care about if their apps will run then care about if they can work for 12 hours on battery.
Seriously, I've never been away from a plug more than about 4 hours except when in the backwoods camping.
Even on transatlantic flights I can get a power plug to keep my laptop running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905811</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am yet to see any. If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks....</p></div><p>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171560/foxconn\_developing\_inexpensive\_armbased\_smartbooks.html</p><p>http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/08/foxconn\_cheap\_arm\_netbooks/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am yet to see any .
If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks....http : //www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171560/foxconn \ _developing \ _inexpensive \ _armbased \ _smartbooks.htmlhttp : //www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/08/foxconn \ _cheap \ _arm \ _netbooks/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am yet to see any.
If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks....http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171560/foxconn\_developing\_inexpensive\_armbased\_smartbooks.htmlhttp://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/08/foxconn\_cheap\_arm\_netbooks/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904625</id>
	<title>Total Annihilation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, that's what's going to happen when this whole ARM vs. Core rivalry thing gets taken just a step too far. But don't say you weren't warned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , that 's what 's going to happen when this whole ARM vs. Core rivalry thing gets taken just a step too far .
But do n't say you were n't warned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, that's what's going to happen when this whole ARM vs. Core rivalry thing gets taken just a step too far.
But don't say you weren't warned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902727</id>
	<title>Re:Fast is not always best</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1256725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh I disagree. I want the fastest processor I can get...with a 1W thermal envelope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I disagree .
I want the fastest processor I can get...with a 1W thermal envelope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I disagree.
I want the fastest processor I can get...with a 1W thermal envelope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903413</id>
	<title>Re:I'm running Windows on ARM *right now*</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1256728380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.</p></div></blockquote><p>To be clear about this, Microsoft Device Emulator is a bog standards dynamic recompilation emulator for the ARM instrution set.</p><p>Applications are compiled as ARM code and linked to the ARM compiled Windows Mobile or Windows CE versions of libraries which are loaded by the Windows Mobile OS which is ARM code running fully emulated within Device Emulator.</p><p>When writing code for mobile devices, please keep power usage in mind at all times (please please please don't auto wake a thread on a timer....) as well as screen size and usability.  Although (IIRC) WinCE can support USB mice, they aren't exactly common for that user segment.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.To be clear about this , Microsoft Device Emulator is a bog standards dynamic recompilation emulator for the ARM instrution set.Applications are compiled as ARM code and linked to the ARM compiled Windows Mobile or Windows CE versions of libraries which are loaded by the Windows Mobile OS which is ARM code running fully emulated within Device Emulator.When writing code for mobile devices , please keep power usage in mind at all times ( please please please do n't auto wake a thread on a timer.... ) as well as screen size and usability .
Although ( IIRC ) WinCE can support USB mice , they are n't exactly common for that user segment .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Pocket PC emulator on Windows works by recompiling the same source to x86 instead of ARM code and linking to a different set of libraries.To be clear about this, Microsoft Device Emulator is a bog standards dynamic recompilation emulator for the ARM instrution set.Applications are compiled as ARM code and linked to the ARM compiled Windows Mobile or Windows CE versions of libraries which are loaded by the Windows Mobile OS which is ARM code running fully emulated within Device Emulator.When writing code for mobile devices, please keep power usage in mind at all times (please please please don't auto wake a thread on a timer....) as well as screen size and usability.
Although (IIRC) WinCE can support USB mice, they aren't exactly common for that user segment.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903495</id>
	<title>That's a lot of chips</title>
	<author>iliketrash</author>
	<datestamp>1256728800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year"</p><p>Really? Is this some kind of government math? That's 2.84 billion chips shipped in 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year " Really ?
Is this some kind of government math ?
That 's 2.84 billion chips shipped in 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ARM will ship an estimated 90 chips per second this year"Really?
Is this some kind of government math?
That's 2.84 billion chips shipped in 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902809</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1256725380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to that link. It has an Intel Atom CPU.<br> <br>WTF are you talking about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to that link .
It has an Intel Atom CPU .
WTF are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to that link.
It has an Intel Atom CPU.
WTF are you talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904147</id>
	<title>Re:90 Chips/Second?</title>
	<author>Rewind</author>
	<datestamp>1256733000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno LOTS of things use ARMs.  Two huge sellers that come to mind are Nintendo DSs and iPhones/iPod touches</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno LOTS of things use ARMs .
Two huge sellers that come to mind are Nintendo DSs and iPhones/iPod touches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno LOTS of things use ARMs.
Two huge sellers that come to mind are Nintendo DSs and iPhones/iPod touches</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377</id>
	<title>ARM == Hype</title>
	<author>Erich</author>
	<datestamp>1256734380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>
Yes, ARM marketing (notoriously overoptimistic) says they will have a 2GHz A9 in 28nm, relatively high performance process.
</p><p>
But A9, in terms of efficiency, is not substantially better than where Atom will be.  That shouldn't be surprising.  They're both scalar architectures.  They both have a little less than 15 useful registers.  They both have similarly deep pipelines.  They both rely on branch prediction for performance.  Neither company has magic, it's not surprising that they're similar on the curve of performance / efficiency.
</p><p>
Put another way, your instruction encoding doesn't really buy you all that much.
</p><p>
Now ARM has some lower-end cores (ARM9, ARM11, Sparrow/CoretexA5) that are much more energy efficient than Atom.  But they're also much lower performance.
</p><p>
But this is how ARM's marketing plays it out: we have super-efficient cores (ARM9)!  We have higher-performance cores (Theoretically, A9)!  You think that ARM cores are somehow both high performance and much more efficient than Atom will be in the same technology... but this will probably turn out to be false.
</p><p>
Put another way... are MIPS or PowerPC cores dramatically more efficient than x86 at similar performance levels?  No.  They have most of the same architecture benefits that ARM does... more, in many ways, because they have about double the number of useful registers.  But they're on basically the same efficiency/performance curve as everyone else.
</p><p>
You could probably do an x86 implementation that was similar to ARM11/A5... no floating point, no SSE, just the basic 386 instruction set.  Give it a short pipeline and turn down the frequency, and it will probably compete relatively well on energy efficiency with those low-end ARMs.
</p><p>
The thing I <b>DON'T</b> understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , ARM marketing ( notoriously overoptimistic ) says they will have a 2GHz A9 in 28nm , relatively high performance process .
But A9 , in terms of efficiency , is not substantially better than where Atom will be .
That should n't be surprising .
They 're both scalar architectures .
They both have a little less than 15 useful registers .
They both have similarly deep pipelines .
They both rely on branch prediction for performance .
Neither company has magic , it 's not surprising that they 're similar on the curve of performance / efficiency .
Put another way , your instruction encoding does n't really buy you all that much .
Now ARM has some lower-end cores ( ARM9 , ARM11 , Sparrow/CoretexA5 ) that are much more energy efficient than Atom .
But they 're also much lower performance .
But this is how ARM 's marketing plays it out : we have super-efficient cores ( ARM9 ) !
We have higher-performance cores ( Theoretically , A9 ) !
You think that ARM cores are somehow both high performance and much more efficient than Atom will be in the same technology... but this will probably turn out to be false .
Put another way... are MIPS or PowerPC cores dramatically more efficient than x86 at similar performance levels ?
No. They have most of the same architecture benefits that ARM does... more , in many ways , because they have about double the number of useful registers .
But they 're on basically the same efficiency/performance curve as everyone else .
You could probably do an x86 implementation that was similar to ARM11/A5... no floating point , no SSE , just the basic 386 instruction set .
Give it a short pipeline and turn down the frequency , and it will probably compete relatively well on energy efficiency with those low-end ARMs .
The thing I DO N'T understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Yes, ARM marketing (notoriously overoptimistic) says they will have a 2GHz A9 in 28nm, relatively high performance process.
But A9, in terms of efficiency, is not substantially better than where Atom will be.
That shouldn't be surprising.
They're both scalar architectures.
They both have a little less than 15 useful registers.
They both have similarly deep pipelines.
They both rely on branch prediction for performance.
Neither company has magic, it's not surprising that they're similar on the curve of performance / efficiency.
Put another way, your instruction encoding doesn't really buy you all that much.
Now ARM has some lower-end cores (ARM9, ARM11, Sparrow/CoretexA5) that are much more energy efficient than Atom.
But they're also much lower performance.
But this is how ARM's marketing plays it out: we have super-efficient cores (ARM9)!
We have higher-performance cores (Theoretically, A9)!
You think that ARM cores are somehow both high performance and much more efficient than Atom will be in the same technology... but this will probably turn out to be false.
Put another way... are MIPS or PowerPC cores dramatically more efficient than x86 at similar performance levels?
No.  They have most of the same architecture benefits that ARM does... more, in many ways, because they have about double the number of useful registers.
But they're on basically the same efficiency/performance curve as everyone else.
You could probably do an x86 implementation that was similar to ARM11/A5... no floating point, no SSE, just the basic 386 instruction set.
Give it a short pipeline and turn down the frequency, and it will probably compete relatively well on energy efficiency with those low-end ARMs.
The thing I DON'T understand... why does ARM marketing get an article on slashdot every week or so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903051</id>
	<title>Correcting myself</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1256726700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I meant "roll out the latest Windows Mobile on Arm..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I meant " roll out the latest Windows Mobile on Arm... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I meant "roll out the latest Windows Mobile on Arm..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</id>
	<title>So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1256724600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am yet to see any. If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am yet to see any .
If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am yet to see any.
If they only at least produced one for each article declaring ARM ubiquitous winner at low-end netbooks....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904431</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>ingsocsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1256734620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, it's still very beta. They're shipping out a bracket that will stop it falling over due to being top heavy. It blows my mind to think how this got through testing! The software isn't very good and I wish they would just ship it with Ubuntu instead of trying to roll their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it 's still very beta .
They 're shipping out a bracket that will stop it falling over due to being top heavy .
It blows my mind to think how this got through testing !
The software is n't very good and I wish they would just ship it with Ubuntu instead of trying to roll their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it's still very beta.
They're shipping out a bracket that will stop it falling over due to being top heavy.
It blows my mind to think how this got through testing!
The software isn't very good and I wish they would just ship it with Ubuntu instead of trying to roll their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903005</id>
	<title>Re:It's JVC's VHS-C versus Sony's Video8 again</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1256726400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>docs especially, but even apps don't have to be difficult to move back and forth. JPEGs,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc/docx/odf are architecture independent. Java/.Net and fat binaries exist for apps, as well as cross compilation. Any good OS would provide all of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>docs especially , but even apps do n't have to be difficult to move back and forth .
JPEGs , .doc/docx/odf are architecture independent .
Java/.Net and fat binaries exist for apps , as well as cross compilation .
Any good OS would provide all of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>docs especially, but even apps don't have to be difficult to move back and forth.
JPEGs, .doc/docx/odf are architecture independent.
Java/.Net and fat binaries exist for apps, as well as cross compilation.
Any good OS would provide all of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902979</id>
	<title>But why do you want a laptop?</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1256726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But really what will kill it is more "innovative" UIs for lower-end laptops don't look like "real" computers in the eyes of the consumer.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, they look like smartphones on steroids. And as these lower-end units will basically be just that - with 3 and 3.5G, phone connectivity, GPS, Bluetooth and wireless, and connecting seamlessly to the back at the ranch desktop - they will be seen as a step up from phones, not down from laptops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But really what will kill it is more " innovative " UIs for lower-end laptops do n't look like " real " computers in the eyes of the consumer.No , they look like smartphones on steroids .
And as these lower-end units will basically be just that - with 3 and 3.5G , phone connectivity , GPS , Bluetooth and wireless , and connecting seamlessly to the back at the ranch desktop - they will be seen as a step up from phones , not down from laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But really what will kill it is more "innovative" UIs for lower-end laptops don't look like "real" computers in the eyes of the consumer.No, they look like smartphones on steroids.
And as these lower-end units will basically be just that - with 3 and 3.5G, phone connectivity, GPS, Bluetooth and wireless, and connecting seamlessly to the back at the ranch desktop - they will be seen as a step up from phones, not down from laptops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902587</id>
	<title>I Must be Getting Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ARM"</p><p>The first thing I thought of was "Adjustable Rate Mortgage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ARM " The first thing I thought of was " Adjustable Rate Mortgage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ARM"The first thing I thought of was "Adjustable Rate Mortgage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902781</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256725260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few things; but mostly obscure or dubiously suitable. The Touchbook (not toughbook) still has a touch of beta about it; but you can actually order one. The Sharp PC-Z1 has a bad case of obscure and japanese; but otherwise exists. You can also get a number of super cheap ARM based netbooks from various random Chinese outfits. Trouble is, most of those are basically the WinCE PDAs of a couple of years back, stuck into a netbook shell. Truly dire specs are the order of the day.<br> <br>

I'm frankly a bit surprised. You can get beagleboards and shivaplugs, with pretty credible ARM based specs, for not all that much even in small quantities, and ARM based smartphones are all over the place, so the field seems surprisingly thin on the netbook side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few things ; but mostly obscure or dubiously suitable .
The Touchbook ( not toughbook ) still has a touch of beta about it ; but you can actually order one .
The Sharp PC-Z1 has a bad case of obscure and japanese ; but otherwise exists .
You can also get a number of super cheap ARM based netbooks from various random Chinese outfits .
Trouble is , most of those are basically the WinCE PDAs of a couple of years back , stuck into a netbook shell .
Truly dire specs are the order of the day .
I 'm frankly a bit surprised .
You can get beagleboards and shivaplugs , with pretty credible ARM based specs , for not all that much even in small quantities , and ARM based smartphones are all over the place , so the field seems surprisingly thin on the netbook side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few things; but mostly obscure or dubiously suitable.
The Touchbook (not toughbook) still has a touch of beta about it; but you can actually order one.
The Sharp PC-Z1 has a bad case of obscure and japanese; but otherwise exists.
You can also get a number of super cheap ARM based netbooks from various random Chinese outfits.
Trouble is, most of those are basically the WinCE PDAs of a couple of years back, stuck into a netbook shell.
Truly dire specs are the order of the day.
I'm frankly a bit surprised.
You can get beagleboards and shivaplugs, with pretty credible ARM based specs, for not all that much even in small quantities, and ARM based smartphones are all over the place, so the field seems surprisingly thin on the netbook side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902923</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1256725980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can roll your own with with a beagle board or gumstix plus a lot of hard hacking. Unfortunately the economies of scale mean you won't save any money, you would end up spending something like $500 to $700 plus a few weekends of research and work to put something together that would have about half the power of a standard netbook (possibly with the exception of hardware accelerated video thanks to the secondary features of the OMAP 3530 system on a chip).</p><p>The next year or so should see more powerful ARM chips on the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can roll your own with with a beagle board or gumstix plus a lot of hard hacking .
Unfortunately the economies of scale mean you wo n't save any money , you would end up spending something like $ 500 to $ 700 plus a few weekends of research and work to put something together that would have about half the power of a standard netbook ( possibly with the exception of hardware accelerated video thanks to the secondary features of the OMAP 3530 system on a chip ) .The next year or so should see more powerful ARM chips on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can roll your own with with a beagle board or gumstix plus a lot of hard hacking.
Unfortunately the economies of scale mean you won't save any money, you would end up spending something like $500 to $700 plus a few weekends of research and work to put something together that would have about half the power of a standard netbook (possibly with the exception of hardware accelerated video thanks to the secondary features of the OMAP 3530 system on a chip).The next year or so should see more powerful ARM chips on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902969</id>
	<title>The problem for AMD is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody gives a hoot about how " high performance applications " do on netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody gives a hoot about how " high performance applications " do on netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody gives a hoot about how " high performance applications " do on netbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902749</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have yet to see any." Then you are not looking. It seems last year there were many. It seems there are fewer this year but still.</p><p>An example -</p><p>Go to www.dell.com<br>Select "for home"<br>select "laptop/notebook"<br>select "OS Ubuntu"</p><p>Tada :</p><p>http://www1.ca.dell.com/ca/en/home/Laptops/laptop-inspiron-10/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-inspiron-10&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=cadhs1&amp;~oid=ca~en~70702~inspnnb\_10vu\_en\_feat\_1~~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have yet to see any .
" Then you are not looking .
It seems last year there were many .
It seems there are fewer this year but still.An example -Go to www.dell.comSelect " for home " select " laptop/notebook " select " OS Ubuntu " Tada : http : //www1.ca.dell.com/ca/en/home/Laptops/laptop-inspiron-10/pd.aspx ? refid = laptop-inspiron-10&amp;s = dhs&amp;cs = cadhs1&amp; ~ oid = ca ~ en ~ 70702 ~ inspnnb \ _10vu \ _en \ _feat \ _1 ~ ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have yet to see any.
" Then you are not looking.
It seems last year there were many.
It seems there are fewer this year but still.An example -Go to www.dell.comSelect "for home"select "laptop/notebook"select "OS Ubuntu"Tada :http://www1.ca.dell.com/ca/en/home/Laptops/laptop-inspiron-10/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-inspiron-10&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=cadhs1&amp;~oid=ca~en~70702~inspnnb\_10vu\_en\_feat\_1~~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905945</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of Acorn?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.</p></div><p>Oh boy are you wrong.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>With ARM's price and power ratio, one could slap 16 to 32 ARMs together, resulting in a more powerful, and still less energy consuming and cheaper "multicore" chip than the best one from Intel.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>I wait for mainboards with stackable ARM sockets. So that you can just put them on top of each other, with a thin heat-pipe layer in-between, leading to a cooler on the back wall of the case.</p><p>Would look impressively cool (big win with the loud-voiced modders), and I'd be the first one to buy one. I run Linux anyway.</p><p>Hey, think about it: Imagine you can just buy a couple of additional cores every few months, for little money, and over the course of 1-2 years, get a real powerful monster of a computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.Oh boy are you wrong .
: ) With ARM 's price and power ratio , one could slap 16 to 32 ARMs together , resulting in a more powerful , and still less energy consuming and cheaper " multicore " chip than the best one from Intel .
: ) I wait for mainboards with stackable ARM sockets .
So that you can just put them on top of each other , with a thin heat-pipe layer in-between , leading to a cooler on the back wall of the case.Would look impressively cool ( big win with the loud-voiced modders ) , and I 'd be the first one to buy one .
I run Linux anyway.Hey , think about it : Imagine you can just buy a couple of additional cores every few months , for little money , and over the course of 1-2 years , get a real powerful monster of a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.Oh boy are you wrong.
:)With ARM's price and power ratio, one could slap 16 to 32 ARMs together, resulting in a more powerful, and still less energy consuming and cheaper "multicore" chip than the best one from Intel.
:)I wait for mainboards with stackable ARM sockets.
So that you can just put them on top of each other, with a thin heat-pipe layer in-between, leading to a cooler on the back wall of the case.Would look impressively cool (big win with the loud-voiced modders), and I'd be the first one to buy one.
I run Linux anyway.Hey, think about it: Imagine you can just buy a couple of additional cores every few months, for little money, and over the course of 1-2 years, get a real powerful monster of a computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711</id>
	<title>Gadgets not laptops</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1256724960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with ARM is that it will perpetually be in the "gadget" category until it can run some "real" OSes. Yes, there is Linux but on popular Linux distros aimed for the general public (such as Ubuntu) ARM is only slightly supported and is still very much a "second class" port compared to the x86 and x86-64 versions. But really what will kill it is more "innovative" UIs for lower-end laptops don't look like "real" computers in the eyes of the consumer. If it looks like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu\_netbook\_remix\_9.04.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu\_netbook\_remix\_9.04.png</a> [wikipedia.org] it is a gadget, compared to if it looks likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows\_XP\_SP3.png ,  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snow\_Leopard\_Desktop.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snow\_Leopard\_Desktop.png</a> [wikipedia.org] or even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-2.28.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-2.28.png</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with ARM is that it will perpetually be in the " gadget " category until it can run some " real " OSes .
Yes , there is Linux but on popular Linux distros aimed for the general public ( such as Ubuntu ) ARM is only slightly supported and is still very much a " second class " port compared to the x86 and x86-64 versions .
But really what will kill it is more " innovative " UIs for lower-end laptops do n't look like " real " computers in the eyes of the consumer .
If it looks like http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Ubuntu \ _netbook \ _remix \ _9.04.png [ wikipedia.org ] it is a gadget , compared to if it looks likehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Windows \ _XP \ _SP3.png , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Snow \ _Leopard \ _Desktop.png [ wikipedia.org ] or even http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Gnome-2.28.png [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with ARM is that it will perpetually be in the "gadget" category until it can run some "real" OSes.
Yes, there is Linux but on popular Linux distros aimed for the general public (such as Ubuntu) ARM is only slightly supported and is still very much a "second class" port compared to the x86 and x86-64 versions.
But really what will kill it is more "innovative" UIs for lower-end laptops don't look like "real" computers in the eyes of the consumer.
If it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu\_netbook\_remix\_9.04.png [wikipedia.org] it is a gadget, compared to if it looks likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows\_XP\_SP3.png ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snow\_Leopard\_Desktop.png [wikipedia.org] or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-2.28.png [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904179</id>
	<title>Re:Low power FTW</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1256733180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*and* contains a fairly complete Forth interpreter.</p><p>Source code + bootloader at <a href="http://github.com/wikireader" title="github.com" rel="nofollow">http://github.com/wikireader</a> [github.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* and * contains a fairly complete Forth interpreter.Source code + bootloader at http : //github.com/wikireader [ github.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*and* contains a fairly complete Forth interpreter.Source code + bootloader at http://github.com/wikireader [github.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902899</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/A4.html" title="chriswhy.co.uk" rel="nofollow">A4, 1992</a> [chriswhy.co.uk]. Newfag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A4 , 1992 [ chriswhy.co.uk ] .
Newfag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A4, 1992 [chriswhy.co.uk].
Newfag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903037</id>
	<title>Re:OS/X?</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1256726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.</p></div><p>Perhaps, but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone" title="wikipedia.org">iPhone</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod\_Touch" title="wikipedia.org">iPod Touch</a> [wikipedia.org] use ARM. Lacking OS/X isn't likely to damage the prospects for ARM. At all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.Perhaps , but the iPhone [ wikipedia.org ] and iPod Touch [ wikipedia.org ] use ARM .
Lacking OS/X is n't likely to damage the prospects for ARM .
At all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.Perhaps, but the iPhone [wikipedia.org] and iPod Touch [wikipedia.org] use ARM.
Lacking OS/X isn't likely to damage the prospects for ARM.
At all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701</id>
	<title>Windows missing ARM</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1256724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market.</p></div><p>In my opinion, it's the opposite.  One thing Windows doesn't have is ARM support (besides Windows CE).  Manufacturers are already seeing the advantage of ARM, and the lack of Windows support isn't a deal breaker in every segment.  I have a SheevaPlug which is an ARM device, and while most major Linux distributions have support for the architecture, Microsoft just has the one, and it isn't even a consideration for most users of the device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows, ' McAllister writes , something that could ultimately stymie ARM 's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market.In my opinion , it 's the opposite .
One thing Windows does n't have is ARM support ( besides Windows CE ) .
Manufacturers are already seeing the advantage of ARM , and the lack of Windows support is n't a deal breaker in every segment .
I have a SheevaPlug which is an ARM device , and while most major Linux distributions have support for the architecture , Microsoft just has the one , and it is n't even a consideration for most users of the device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market.In my opinion, it's the opposite.
One thing Windows doesn't have is ARM support (besides Windows CE).
Manufacturers are already seeing the advantage of ARM, and the lack of Windows support isn't a deal breaker in every segment.
I have a SheevaPlug which is an ARM device, and while most major Linux distributions have support for the architecture, Microsoft just has the one, and it isn't even a consideration for most users of the device.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905459</id>
	<title>Re:Low power FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just purchased a Wikireader, which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor, not unlike an ARM. It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries. And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen.</p></div><p>Yes, the Wikireader is a nice compact gadget, and the power efficiency is superb.  Too bad it has no network connectivity at all.  It could gain a lot of useful features--graphing calculator + PDA/organizer + etext reader + handheld game console comes to mind--but it's no <i>net</i>book</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just purchased a Wikireader , which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor , not unlike an ARM .
It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries .
And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen.Yes , the Wikireader is a nice compact gadget , and the power efficiency is superb .
Too bad it has no network connectivity at all .
It could gain a lot of useful features--graphing calculator + PDA/organizer + etext reader + handheld game console comes to mind--but it 's no netbook</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just purchased a Wikireader, which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor, not unlike an ARM.
It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries.
And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen.Yes, the Wikireader is a nice compact gadget, and the power efficiency is superb.
Too bad it has no network connectivity at all.
It could gain a lot of useful features--graphing calculator + PDA/organizer + etext reader + handheld game console comes to mind--but it's no netbook
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875</id>
	<title>Windows is fading into the background</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's possible that the desktop dominance of Windows will keep Arm out of the small computer market. But a lot will depend on developments with Oleds and e-ink. Currently the display is the power hog of all-in-one computers, which means that changing the cpu energy consumption makes relatively little difference. But once Oled and e-ink displays reduce the power consumption needed for the display, the cpu becomes more significant. As screen sizes on convergent devices fall - I personally suspect that the 5.5 to 7 inch diagonal screen will come to dominate in truly portable devices - the resulting limit on battery size will be the difference between an all-day device and one that cannot get through a working day. This is where the new generation of Linux distributions like Maemo and Android running on Arm will deliver a visible benefit, and the end user - who doesn't really care whether he has to run "word" or "floop" so long as the document opens correctly and edits - will be more interested in whether he can go from 7 a.m. to 7p.m without a charge.<p>I'm writing  this on a netbook running Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10 and it just works (TM). It would work just as well on an Arm processor.</p><p>In the real world, I'm sure that Microsoft will be able to roll out Windows Mobile on Arm one microsecond after Dell tell them that their new 7 inch communications centre and ebook reader will have to run an OS supplied by Canonical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that the desktop dominance of Windows will keep Arm out of the small computer market .
But a lot will depend on developments with Oleds and e-ink .
Currently the display is the power hog of all-in-one computers , which means that changing the cpu energy consumption makes relatively little difference .
But once Oled and e-ink displays reduce the power consumption needed for the display , the cpu becomes more significant .
As screen sizes on convergent devices fall - I personally suspect that the 5.5 to 7 inch diagonal screen will come to dominate in truly portable devices - the resulting limit on battery size will be the difference between an all-day device and one that can not get through a working day .
This is where the new generation of Linux distributions like Maemo and Android running on Arm will deliver a visible benefit , and the end user - who does n't really care whether he has to run " word " or " floop " so long as the document opens correctly and edits - will be more interested in whether he can go from 7 a.m. to 7p.m without a charge.I 'm writing this on a netbook running Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10 and it just works ( TM ) .
It would work just as well on an Arm processor.In the real world , I 'm sure that Microsoft will be able to roll out Windows Mobile on Arm one microsecond after Dell tell them that their new 7 inch communications centre and ebook reader will have to run an OS supplied by Canonical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that the desktop dominance of Windows will keep Arm out of the small computer market.
But a lot will depend on developments with Oleds and e-ink.
Currently the display is the power hog of all-in-one computers, which means that changing the cpu energy consumption makes relatively little difference.
But once Oled and e-ink displays reduce the power consumption needed for the display, the cpu becomes more significant.
As screen sizes on convergent devices fall - I personally suspect that the 5.5 to 7 inch diagonal screen will come to dominate in truly portable devices - the resulting limit on battery size will be the difference between an all-day device and one that cannot get through a working day.
This is where the new generation of Linux distributions like Maemo and Android running on Arm will deliver a visible benefit, and the end user - who doesn't really care whether he has to run "word" or "floop" so long as the document opens correctly and edits - will be more interested in whether he can go from 7 a.m. to 7p.m without a charge.I'm writing  this on a netbook running Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10 and it just works (TM).
It would work just as well on an Arm processor.In the real world, I'm sure that Microsoft will be able to roll out Windows Mobile on Arm one microsecond after Dell tell them that their new 7 inch communications centre and ebook reader will have to run an OS supplied by Canonical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904539</id>
	<title>Re:Fast is not always best</title>
	<author>Missing\_dc</author>
	<datestamp>1256735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slow may work, but I would really like it if the ATM (and cashier/register) were quite a bit faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow may work , but I would really like it if the ATM ( and cashier/register ) were quite a bit faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow may work, but I would really like it if the ATM (and cashier/register) were quite a bit faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904927</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, Windows Mobile is just a wrapper around the Windows CE core. There's no particularly great need to mention them separately.</p><p>More importantly, there's no reason that the Win32 API couldn't be brought to ARM. There are a few possible ways to do this:<br>
&nbsp; * Hacking it into WinCE somehow (the brute-force approach)<br>
&nbsp; * Port NT and the Win32 subsystem to ARM (certainly possible, but if you do that then you probably need to port the WinMo API to an NT subsystem for backward compatibility. On the plus side this is one less kernel to maintain)<br>
&nbsp; * Use a POSIX system (possibly the POSIX subsystem for NT, but more likely something *BSD) with Wine on top (Wine is already working on an ARM port, although I'm not really sure why)</p><p>There's no reason that most Win32 apps couldn't be re-compiled for ARM, it's just that there isn't currently a Win32 API on ARM. Fix that, release a handful of first-party ARM ports, make the SDK a free download (it already is for x86-based apps) along with a free update to Visual Studio that uses the cross-compiler and checks for architecture-specific compatibility issues, and watch ISVs fall all over themselves releasing ports of their software for the new platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Windows Mobile is just a wrapper around the Windows CE core .
There 's no particularly great need to mention them separately.More importantly , there 's no reason that the Win32 API could n't be brought to ARM .
There are a few possible ways to do this :   * Hacking it into WinCE somehow ( the brute-force approach )   * Port NT and the Win32 subsystem to ARM ( certainly possible , but if you do that then you probably need to port the WinMo API to an NT subsystem for backward compatibility .
On the plus side this is one less kernel to maintain )   * Use a POSIX system ( possibly the POSIX subsystem for NT , but more likely something * BSD ) with Wine on top ( Wine is already working on an ARM port , although I 'm not really sure why ) There 's no reason that most Win32 apps could n't be re-compiled for ARM , it 's just that there is n't currently a Win32 API on ARM .
Fix that , release a handful of first-party ARM ports , make the SDK a free download ( it already is for x86-based apps ) along with a free update to Visual Studio that uses the cross-compiler and checks for architecture-specific compatibility issues , and watch ISVs fall all over themselves releasing ports of their software for the new platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Windows Mobile is just a wrapper around the Windows CE core.
There's no particularly great need to mention them separately.More importantly, there's no reason that the Win32 API couldn't be brought to ARM.
There are a few possible ways to do this:
  * Hacking it into WinCE somehow (the brute-force approach)
  * Port NT and the Win32 subsystem to ARM (certainly possible, but if you do that then you probably need to port the WinMo API to an NT subsystem for backward compatibility.
On the plus side this is one less kernel to maintain)
  * Use a POSIX system (possibly the POSIX subsystem for NT, but more likely something *BSD) with Wine on top (Wine is already working on an ARM port, although I'm not really sure why)There's no reason that most Win32 apps couldn't be re-compiled for ARM, it's just that there isn't currently a Win32 API on ARM.
Fix that, release a handful of first-party ARM ports, make the SDK a free download (it already is for x86-based apps) along with a free update to Visual Studio that uses the cross-compiler and checks for architecture-specific compatibility issues, and watch ISVs fall all over themselves releasing ports of their software for the new platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902595</id>
	<title>ARM/Linux in the Tesla Roadster</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1256724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To tie in with an earlier article on the front page: the Tesla Roadster's battery pack management system is ARM-based.  It's built around a Philips-LPC2294 with 32 megs of ram and a 1GB U3 Cruzer Micro USB flash drive, running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To tie in with an earlier article on the front page : the Tesla Roadster 's battery pack management system is ARM-based .
It 's built around a Philips-LPC2294 with 32 megs of ram and a 1GB U3 Cruzer Micro USB flash drive , running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To tie in with an earlier article on the front page: the Tesla Roadster's battery pack management system is ARM-based.
It's built around a Philips-LPC2294 with 32 megs of ram and a 1GB U3 Cruzer Micro USB flash drive, running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907435</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1256846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://beagleboard.org/" title="beagleboard.org">http://beagleboard.org/</a> [beagleboard.org]<br><a href="http://www.gumstix.net/" title="gumstix.net">http://www.gumstix.net/</a> [gumstix.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //beagleboard.org/ [ beagleboard.org ] http : //www.gumstix.net/ [ gumstix.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://beagleboard.org/ [beagleboard.org]http://www.gumstix.net/ [gumstix.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902753</id>
	<title>Details are Wrong</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1256725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the End of Intel AND Microsoft?</p><p>Intel doesn't care what OS runs on their chip.  I think their Linux distro is Moblin?  As long as they have orders, they don't care what the consumer uses.</p><p>Microsoft doesn't care because this is still a niche and they can string along the OEM's with XP forever.  When it starts blowing up into a category all its own, I think they'll do something to encourage OEM's to use Intel chips and keep XP out there.  Microsoft relies on the fact Linux still doesn't have anything overtly special on XP that the average Dell buyer wants.</p><p>Please don't flame me bro.  I say these things as a long-time Debian user who gets the differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the End of Intel AND Microsoft ? Intel does n't care what OS runs on their chip .
I think their Linux distro is Moblin ?
As long as they have orders , they do n't care what the consumer uses.Microsoft does n't care because this is still a niche and they can string along the OEM 's with XP forever .
When it starts blowing up into a category all its own , I think they 'll do something to encourage OEM 's to use Intel chips and keep XP out there .
Microsoft relies on the fact Linux still does n't have anything overtly special on XP that the average Dell buyer wants.Please do n't flame me bro .
I say these things as a long-time Debian user who gets the differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the End of Intel AND Microsoft?Intel doesn't care what OS runs on their chip.
I think their Linux distro is Moblin?
As long as they have orders, they don't care what the consumer uses.Microsoft doesn't care because this is still a niche and they can string along the OEM's with XP forever.
When it starts blowing up into a category all its own, I think they'll do something to encourage OEM's to use Intel chips and keep XP out there.
Microsoft relies on the fact Linux still doesn't have anything overtly special on XP that the average Dell buyer wants.Please don't flame me bro.
I say these things as a long-time Debian user who gets the differences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902841</id>
	<title>Re:It's JVC's VHS-C versus Sony's Video8 again</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1256725560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It didn't monopolise the market though, and may not have done so well had it not had other advantages (i.e. it was cheap).  Camcorders had phono composite connectors so it wasn't that hard to convert other formats to VHS.  <br> <br>
Similarly, all people really want is to be able to transfer documents seamlessly.  They don't care so much if different applications run on different machines.  You can already get Windows CE on ARM, and MS would have no objection to producing a Word compatible word processor for CE if demand was sufficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It did n't monopolise the market though , and may not have done so well had it not had other advantages ( i.e .
it was cheap ) .
Camcorders had phono composite connectors so it was n't that hard to convert other formats to VHS .
Similarly , all people really want is to be able to transfer documents seamlessly .
They do n't care so much if different applications run on different machines .
You can already get Windows CE on ARM , and MS would have no objection to producing a Word compatible word processor for CE if demand was sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It didn't monopolise the market though, and may not have done so well had it not had other advantages (i.e.
it was cheap).
Camcorders had phono composite connectors so it wasn't that hard to convert other formats to VHS.
Similarly, all people really want is to be able to transfer documents seamlessly.
They don't care so much if different applications run on different machines.
You can already get Windows CE on ARM, and MS would have no objection to producing a Word compatible word processor for CE if demand was sufficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902831</id>
	<title>Re:Fast is not always best</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1256725500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd agree with this.  Processors only have to be fast enough that human beings don't notice the time it takes for the processor to do its work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree with this .
Processors only have to be fast enough that human beings do n't notice the time it takes for the processor to do its work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree with this.
Processors only have to be fast enough that human beings don't notice the time it takes for the processor to do its work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904565</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256735580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is partially source compatible, but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand, makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they work</p></div><p>How? Is it really that much easier to port an application for Windows to one of the common GNU/Linux app frameworks than to Windows CE? It might be if the app currently runs on Qt, or if you treat Winelib as a framework.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is partially source compatible , but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand , makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they workHow ?
Is it really that much easier to port an application for Windows to one of the common GNU/Linux app frameworks than to Windows CE ?
It might be if the app currently runs on Qt , or if you treat Winelib as a framework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is partially source compatible, but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand, makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they workHow?
Is it really that much easier to port an application for Windows to one of the common GNU/Linux app frameworks than to Windows CE?
It might be if the app currently runs on Qt, or if you treat Winelib as a framework.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903517</id>
	<title>Re:I'm running Windows on ARM *right now*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you're missing the point. Windows CE is just a lousy, broken, piece-of-shit toy. What the article is saying is that Microsoft does not have an \_operating system\_ for ARM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you 're missing the point .
Windows CE is just a lousy , broken , piece-of-shit toy .
What the article is saying is that Microsoft does not have an \ _operating system \ _ for ARM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you're missing the point.
Windows CE is just a lousy, broken, piece-of-shit toy.
What the article is saying is that Microsoft does not have an \_operating system\_ for ARM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908399</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of Acorn?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1256819280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ARM was *always* about low power consumption, right from the very first test article.</p><p>I went to a talk by Steve Furber in September, where he discussed the BBC Micro, the development of the ARM, and the massively parallel ARM based system (thousands of cores) that he is now working on.</p><p>They needed low power to make the chip inexpensive - they wanted the chip to be in plastic packaging which cost perhaps $1 per chip, rather than ceramic, which would cost around $10 per chip. (By then, Intel were already having to use ceramic packages due to the inefficiency of their designs). Not having any way to forecast accurately the power consumption of the chip they were designing, they did everything they could think of to keep power requirements low, desperately hoping it'd meet the 1W maximum they needed to make the chip inexpensive.</p><p>When they got the test article back, they were astonished. They had *massively* overachieved - the original ARM had a power consumption of 0.1W.</p><p>The original ARM was also specified in 808 lines of BBC BASIC.</p><p>If you get the opportunity to see Steve Furber or Sophie Wilson talk about the ARM, take it.</p><p>Intel have a huge ball and chain around them regarding the x86 architecture - the bit that just figures out how long the instruction is so it knows where to fetch the next one is the size of an entire ARM core. That is a huge opportunity cost they have to bear with low power designs, especially as even low power designs start to become multicore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ARM was * always * about low power consumption , right from the very first test article.I went to a talk by Steve Furber in September , where he discussed the BBC Micro , the development of the ARM , and the massively parallel ARM based system ( thousands of cores ) that he is now working on.They needed low power to make the chip inexpensive - they wanted the chip to be in plastic packaging which cost perhaps $ 1 per chip , rather than ceramic , which would cost around $ 10 per chip .
( By then , Intel were already having to use ceramic packages due to the inefficiency of their designs ) .
Not having any way to forecast accurately the power consumption of the chip they were designing , they did everything they could think of to keep power requirements low , desperately hoping it 'd meet the 1W maximum they needed to make the chip inexpensive.When they got the test article back , they were astonished .
They had * massively * overachieved - the original ARM had a power consumption of 0.1W.The original ARM was also specified in 808 lines of BBC BASIC.If you get the opportunity to see Steve Furber or Sophie Wilson talk about the ARM , take it.Intel have a huge ball and chain around them regarding the x86 architecture - the bit that just figures out how long the instruction is so it knows where to fetch the next one is the size of an entire ARM core .
That is a huge opportunity cost they have to bear with low power designs , especially as even low power designs start to become multicore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARM was *always* about low power consumption, right from the very first test article.I went to a talk by Steve Furber in September, where he discussed the BBC Micro, the development of the ARM, and the massively parallel ARM based system (thousands of cores) that he is now working on.They needed low power to make the chip inexpensive - they wanted the chip to be in plastic packaging which cost perhaps $1 per chip, rather than ceramic, which would cost around $10 per chip.
(By then, Intel were already having to use ceramic packages due to the inefficiency of their designs).
Not having any way to forecast accurately the power consumption of the chip they were designing, they did everything they could think of to keep power requirements low, desperately hoping it'd meet the 1W maximum they needed to make the chip inexpensive.When they got the test article back, they were astonished.
They had *massively* overachieved - the original ARM had a power consumption of 0.1W.The original ARM was also specified in 808 lines of BBC BASIC.If you get the opportunity to see Steve Furber or Sophie Wilson talk about the ARM, take it.Intel have a huge ball and chain around them regarding the x86 architecture - the bit that just figures out how long the instruction is so it knows where to fetch the next one is the size of an entire ARM core.
That is a huge opportunity cost they have to bear with low power designs, especially as even low power designs start to become multicore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908123</id>
	<title>Re:ARM == Hype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256815140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cortex A9 is not only superscalar like its A8 sibling, it also have out-of-order processing which I assure you the Intel Atom haven't.<br>As of the instruction encoding any ARM is theoretically more efficient than x86 instructions as they support conditional execution, three operands and for some a "free" shift/rotate on data before execution the ALU operation.<br>It's not unusual that hand optimized ARM inner loops have 1/2 or less instructions than the x86 equivalent, at least in the area I'm familiar with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cortex A9 is not only superscalar like its A8 sibling , it also have out-of-order processing which I assure you the Intel Atom have n't.As of the instruction encoding any ARM is theoretically more efficient than x86 instructions as they support conditional execution , three operands and for some a " free " shift/rotate on data before execution the ALU operation.It 's not unusual that hand optimized ARM inner loops have 1/2 or less instructions than the x86 equivalent , at least in the area I 'm familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cortex A9 is not only superscalar like its A8 sibling, it also have out-of-order processing which I assure you the Intel Atom haven't.As of the instruction encoding any ARM is theoretically more efficient than x86 instructions as they support conditional execution, three operands and for some a "free" shift/rotate on data before execution the ALU operation.It's not unusual that hand optimized ARM inner loops have 1/2 or less instructions than the x86 equivalent, at least in the area I'm familiar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903175</id>
	<title>Does such a thing exist?</title>
	<author>Dimwit</author>
	<datestamp>1256727300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love a full-size laptop (13" screen or better) with an ARM chip. Long battery life, full size keyboard and display. It'd be great.</p><p>The only things I can find with ARM chips these days are tiny netbooks. The largest I've found is only 10".</p><p>Anyone know any "big" ARM laptops?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love a full-size laptop ( 13 " screen or better ) with an ARM chip .
Long battery life , full size keyboard and display .
It 'd be great.The only things I can find with ARM chips these days are tiny netbooks .
The largest I 've found is only 10 " .Anyone know any " big " ARM laptops ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love a full-size laptop (13" screen or better) with an ARM chip.
Long battery life, full size keyboard and display.
It'd be great.The only things I can find with ARM chips these days are tiny netbooks.
The largest I've found is only 10".Anyone know any "big" ARM laptops?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689</id>
	<title>It's JVC's VHS-C versus Sony's Video8 again</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes</p></div><p>   VHS-C was compatible with people's home machines, so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations, and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV.  With Sony's Video8 that wasn't possible, so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.</p><p>I expect the same thing to happen in netbooks - People have Windows on their PCs (both home and work).  They'll want to have Windows on their netbooks too, so they can move their docs or applications back-and-forth easily.  So Intel/Windows will eventually come to dominate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows, ' McAllister writes VHS-C was compatible with people 's home machines , so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations , and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV .
With Sony 's Video8 that was n't possible , so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.I expect the same thing to happen in netbooks - People have Windows on their PCs ( both home and work ) .
They 'll want to have Windows on their netbooks too , so they can move their docs or applications back-and-forth easily .
So Intel/Windows will eventually come to dominate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes   VHS-C was compatible with people's home machines, so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations, and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV.
With Sony's Video8 that wasn't possible, so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.I expect the same thing to happen in netbooks - People have Windows on their PCs (both home and work).
They'll want to have Windows on their netbooks too, so they can move their docs or applications back-and-forth easily.
So Intel/Windows will eventually come to dominate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1256735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything'). Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we didn't know "what" we wanted from a clock (or half clock etc if you're talking ARM...)."</p><p>Unfortunately Transmeta didn't release any (consumer) DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDS with processors so enthusiasts could try them out by building systems around them and their product could get market traction.</p><p>Do you have a recommendation for an ARM CPU/mobo combo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" IMO Transmeta had it right : very long instruction words ( which ultimately do 'everything ' ) .
Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we did n't know " what " we wanted from a clock ( or half clock etc if you 're talking ARM... ) .
" Unfortunately Transmeta did n't release any ( consumer ) DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDS with processors so enthusiasts could try them out by building systems around them and their product could get market traction.Do you have a recommendation for an ARM CPU/mobo combo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything').
Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we didn't know "what" we wanted from a clock (or half clock etc if you're talking ARM...).
"Unfortunately Transmeta didn't release any (consumer) DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDS with processors so enthusiasts could try them out by building systems around them and their product could get market traction.Do you have a recommendation for an ARM CPU/mobo combo?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902733</id>
	<title>looks like Slashdot really wants this</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1256725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>February: <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/146201" title="slashdot.org">Shifting Apps To ARM Chips Could Save Laptop Batteries</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>September: <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/09/16/1527209/ARM-Attacks-Intels-Netbook-Stranglehold" title="slashdot.org">ARM Attacks Intel's Netbook Stranglehold</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>3 days ago: <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/10/24/234206/ARM-Launches-Cortex-A5-Processor-To-Take-On-Atom" title="slashdot.org">ARM Launches Cortex-A5 Processor, To Take On Atom</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Doesn't mean it won't happen, of course, but still unclear if it will, either...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>February : Shifting Apps To ARM Chips Could Save Laptop Batteries [ slashdot.org ] September : ARM Attacks Intel 's Netbook Stranglehold [ slashdot.org ] 3 days ago : ARM Launches Cortex-A5 Processor , To Take On Atom [ slashdot.org ] Does n't mean it wo n't happen , of course , but still unclear if it will , either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>February: Shifting Apps To ARM Chips Could Save Laptop Batteries [slashdot.org]September: ARM Attacks Intel's Netbook Stranglehold [slashdot.org]3 days ago: ARM Launches Cortex-A5 Processor, To Take On Atom [slashdot.org]Doesn't mean it won't happen, of course, but still unclear if it will, either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903891</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.</p><p>There might not be "full-featured Windows" on ARM, but saying there's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance.</p></div><p>Except that with Linux, BSD, and even OS X, the code that runs on x86 is the same code that runs on ARM (and PowerPC).</p><p>With "Windows", the code that runs on x86 is not the same as runs on the embedded stuff: there's no "scaled down" version like the Unix-based systems. It's a completely separate OS. The only multi-platform stuff that Microsoft has is Windows for Itanium.</p><p>Just because the Microsoft marketing folks call it "Windows" CE or Mobile does not make it the same as the desktop / server OS. With the Unix-y systems, it <em>is</em> the code and OS (though perhaps cut down to the bare essentials). And <em>that's</em> what we're talking about here: taking the same code and simply doing a recompile. It's not going to happen with Vista or W7, but it can happen with other OSes (heck, even OpenSolaris is being ported as-is to ARM and PowerPC).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.There might not be " full-featured Windows " on ARM , but saying there 's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance.Except that with Linux , BSD , and even OS X , the code that runs on x86 is the same code that runs on ARM ( and PowerPC ) .With " Windows " , the code that runs on x86 is not the same as runs on the embedded stuff : there 's no " scaled down " version like the Unix-based systems .
It 's a completely separate OS .
The only multi-platform stuff that Microsoft has is Windows for Itanium.Just because the Microsoft marketing folks call it " Windows " CE or Mobile does not make it the same as the desktop / server OS .
With the Unix-y systems , it is the code and OS ( though perhaps cut down to the bare essentials ) .
And that 's what we 're talking about here : taking the same code and simply doing a recompile .
It 's not going to happen with Vista or W7 , but it can happen with other OSes ( heck , even OpenSolaris is being ported as-is to ARM and PowerPC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.There might not be "full-featured Windows" on ARM, but saying there's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance.Except that with Linux, BSD, and even OS X, the code that runs on x86 is the same code that runs on ARM (and PowerPC).With "Windows", the code that runs on x86 is not the same as runs on the embedded stuff: there's no "scaled down" version like the Unix-based systems.
It's a completely separate OS.
The only multi-platform stuff that Microsoft has is Windows for Itanium.Just because the Microsoft marketing folks call it "Windows" CE or Mobile does not make it the same as the desktop / server OS.
With the Unix-y systems, it is the code and OS (though perhaps cut down to the bare essentials).
And that's what we're talking about here: taking the same code and simply doing a recompile.
It's not going to happen with Vista or W7, but it can happen with other OSes (heck, even OpenSolaris is being ported as-is to ARM and PowerPC).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29913701</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256843700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and you don't even have to compile the apps, they already are there. That's one reason why free software rules, it's a lot easier to change architecture. Ubuntu already has ARM port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and you do n't even have to compile the apps , they already are there .
That 's one reason why free software rules , it 's a lot easier to change architecture .
Ubuntu already has ARM port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and you don't even have to compile the apps, they already are there.
That's one reason why free software rules, it's a lot easier to change architecture.
Ubuntu already has ARM port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903479</id>
	<title>Re:90 Chips/Second?</title>
	<author>KillerBob</author>
	<datestamp>1256728740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's 7,776,000 chips/day. I find that more than hard to believe.</p></div></blockquote><p>They're not building the chips themselves. ARM licenses their chip designs out to other fabricators. When you consider that most of the cell phones in the world have an ARM chip in them, as well as many embedded devices (ATMs, fridges, programmable coffee makers, DVD players, car stereos, iPods/portable MP3 players, programmable remote controls, telephones, etc.), it's really not hard to conceive that they're shipping 2 billion units a year. Actually, I'm a little surprised the number is so low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 7,776,000 chips/day .
I find that more than hard to believe.They 're not building the chips themselves .
ARM licenses their chip designs out to other fabricators .
When you consider that most of the cell phones in the world have an ARM chip in them , as well as many embedded devices ( ATMs , fridges , programmable coffee makers , DVD players , car stereos , iPods/portable MP3 players , programmable remote controls , telephones , etc .
) , it 's really not hard to conceive that they 're shipping 2 billion units a year .
Actually , I 'm a little surprised the number is so low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 7,776,000 chips/day.
I find that more than hard to believe.They're not building the chips themselves.
ARM licenses their chip designs out to other fabricators.
When you consider that most of the cell phones in the world have an ARM chip in them, as well as many embedded devices (ATMs, fridges, programmable coffee makers, DVD players, car stereos, iPods/portable MP3 players, programmable remote controls, telephones, etc.
), it's really not hard to conceive that they're shipping 2 billion units a year.
Actually, I'm a little surprised the number is so low.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905989</id>
	<title>Re:Windows missing ARM</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1256745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. This means Microsoft cannot employ the Strong-Arm tactics it used with Asus to compel the vendor to drop Linux based Netbooks.</p><p>I'm already evaluating a SmartQ5 and a SmartQ7 MID from a Chinese vendor SmartDevices, as a data entry terminal and doctors' PC at a hospital where I consult. Since our HMIS and PACS systems are both web-based, we don't need Windows on the client side, just a decent sized screen and a simple windowing environment, which Linux provides on the ARM processors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
This means Microsoft can not employ the Strong-Arm tactics it used with Asus to compel the vendor to drop Linux based Netbooks.I 'm already evaluating a SmartQ5 and a SmartQ7 MID from a Chinese vendor SmartDevices , as a data entry terminal and doctors ' PC at a hospital where I consult .
Since our HMIS and PACS systems are both web-based , we do n't need Windows on the client side , just a decent sized screen and a simple windowing environment , which Linux provides on the ARM processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
This means Microsoft cannot employ the Strong-Arm tactics it used with Asus to compel the vendor to drop Linux based Netbooks.I'm already evaluating a SmartQ5 and a SmartQ7 MID from a Chinese vendor SmartDevices, as a data entry terminal and doctors' PC at a hospital where I consult.
Since our HMIS and PACS systems are both web-based, we don't need Windows on the client side, just a decent sized screen and a simple windowing environment, which Linux provides on the ARM processors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679</id>
	<title>Fast is not always best</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fastest processor is not always the best for all applications. Certainly most desktops these days have more than enough power for those that browse the web. So why not save the cost of the big overpowered processor (and the big overpowered OS) where possible.</p><p>And in embedded designs the fastest processor is almost always an overdesign. All those kiosks for cash machines, ticket sales and cash registers do not need the latest fast processors. The do fine with a slower processors.</p><p>There is certainly a big market for an OS that does not tax the processor and is able to provide the minimal OS functionality dedicate application devices need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fastest processor is not always the best for all applications .
Certainly most desktops these days have more than enough power for those that browse the web .
So why not save the cost of the big overpowered processor ( and the big overpowered OS ) where possible.And in embedded designs the fastest processor is almost always an overdesign .
All those kiosks for cash machines , ticket sales and cash registers do not need the latest fast processors .
The do fine with a slower processors.There is certainly a big market for an OS that does not tax the processor and is able to provide the minimal OS functionality dedicate application devices need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fastest processor is not always the best for all applications.
Certainly most desktops these days have more than enough power for those that browse the web.
So why not save the cost of the big overpowered processor (and the big overpowered OS) where possible.And in embedded designs the fastest processor is almost always an overdesign.
All those kiosks for cash machines, ticket sales and cash registers do not need the latest fast processors.
The do fine with a slower processors.There is certainly a big market for an OS that does not tax the processor and is able to provide the minimal OS functionality dedicate application devices need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904749</id>
	<title>Re:Windows on low-end?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1256736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway?</p> </div><p>Windows users. There's a lot of them around, unfortunately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway ?
Windows users .
There 's a lot of them around , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway?
Windows users.
There's a lot of them around, unfortunately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29915345</id>
	<title>I forgive them, they are Infoworld</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market. </i></p><p>What a bunch of tripe!  Microsoft bullied all the laptop manufacturers into upping their harware specs and offering XP.  They shot themselves in the foot doing this as it needlessly inflates the price of the 'netbook'.</p><p>This is likely an opportunity for ARM to flood the market with supper cheap linux netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows, ' McAllister writes , something that could ultimately stymie ARM 's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market .
What a bunch of tripe !
Microsoft bullied all the laptop manufacturers into upping their harware specs and offering XP .
They shot themselves in the foot doing this as it needlessly inflates the price of the 'netbook'.This is likely an opportunity for ARM to flood the market with supper cheap linux netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes, something that could ultimately stymie ARM's plans to compete on the low end of the netbook market.
What a bunch of tripe!
Microsoft bullied all the laptop manufacturers into upping their harware specs and offering XP.
They shot themselves in the foot doing this as it needlessly inflates the price of the 'netbook'.This is likely an opportunity for ARM to flood the market with supper cheap linux netbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905965</id>
	<title>Re:ARM == Hype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, sorry, but by specifically not mentioning, that a Atom only runs with a north-bridge that pulls a multiple of the power of the Atom itself, thereby hiding its real power usage, you fail, and I will ignore the rest of your comment, for lack of competence.</p><p>Oh, and I have seen ARM Smartbook prototypes that take 1-2 watt TOTAL (including the Tegra GPU), and run pretty close to the 2 GHz already, with my own eyes. So don't tell me, something I have seen myself, can not possibly exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , sorry , but by specifically not mentioning , that a Atom only runs with a north-bridge that pulls a multiple of the power of the Atom itself , thereby hiding its real power usage , you fail , and I will ignore the rest of your comment , for lack of competence.Oh , and I have seen ARM Smartbook prototypes that take 1-2 watt TOTAL ( including the Tegra GPU ) , and run pretty close to the 2 GHz already , with my own eyes .
So do n't tell me , something I have seen myself , can not possibly exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, sorry, but by specifically not mentioning, that a Atom only runs with a north-bridge that pulls a multiple of the power of the Atom itself, thereby hiding its real power usage, you fail, and I will ignore the rest of your comment, for lack of competence.Oh, and I have seen ARM Smartbook prototypes that take 1-2 watt TOTAL (including the Tegra GPU), and run pretty close to the 2 GHz already, with my own eyes.
So don't tell me, something I have seen myself, can not possibly exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903011</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So which will we see first: ARM netbooks or the year of Linux on the desktop?  My prediction: neither.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So which will we see first : ARM netbooks or the year of Linux on the desktop ?
My prediction : neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which will we see first: ARM netbooks or the year of Linux on the desktop?
My prediction: neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904293</id>
	<title>Atom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256733780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is an AI Touchbook review on the net somewhere in which the reviewer measured the draw from the wall.  With the battery fully charged, it draws ~4 watts, and ~8 or 10 watts while charging.  The omap3 consumes less electricity than the atom alone, both under full load.  And the omap is on a 65nm process.  All the fab technology Intel has isn't going to help them compete on power consumption or cost of manufacturing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an AI Touchbook review on the net somewhere in which the reviewer measured the draw from the wall .
With the battery fully charged , it draws ~ 4 watts , and ~ 8 or 10 watts while charging .
The omap3 consumes less electricity than the atom alone , both under full load .
And the omap is on a 65nm process .
All the fab technology Intel has is n't going to help them compete on power consumption or cost of manufacturing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an AI Touchbook review on the net somewhere in which the reviewer measured the draw from the wall.
With the battery fully charged, it draws ~4 watts, and ~8 or 10 watts while charging.
The omap3 consumes less electricity than the atom alone, both under full load.
And the omap is on a 65nm process.
All the fab technology Intel has isn't going to help them compete on power consumption or cost of manufacturing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904513</id>
	<title>Surprised Gucci size 14 man Shoes,BAPE T-Shirts ac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907755</id>
	<title>Re:Windows missing ARM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I particularly loved the bassackwards "The chip already supports multiple flavors of the Linux OS, but does not support Windows 7."</p><p>I mean seriously, WTF? This is InfoWorld, a supposedly half-decent publication. A chip does not support operating systems. An operating system may support the use of a particular chip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I particularly loved the bassackwards " The chip already supports multiple flavors of the Linux OS , but does not support Windows 7 .
" I mean seriously , WTF ?
This is InfoWorld , a supposedly half-decent publication .
A chip does not support operating systems .
An operating system may support the use of a particular chip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I particularly loved the bassackwards "The chip already supports multiple flavors of the Linux OS, but does not support Windows 7.
"I mean seriously, WTF?
This is InfoWorld, a supposedly half-decent publication.
A chip does not support operating systems.
An operating system may support the use of a particular chip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</id>
	<title>Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please!</p><p>It's not a stealth thing at all. The low power SoC market has always been ARMs. It's AMD (Geode... and then Intel's Atom) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market. If anything the article should focus on the troubles ARM is likely to face in the near future: unless RISC can continue to compete for price (aggressively), I doubt that adding more pipelines will make the general purpose platform developers happy - RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks; x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed.</p><p>IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything'). Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we didn't know "what" we wanted from a clock (or half clock etc if you're talking ARM...).</p><p>VLIW will be back soon enough, but I worry that it wont be the right place for ARM.</p><p>(nb: I am an ARM fanboy, having 'matured' in an ARM sponsored undergrad lab. it upsets me as much as anyone that ARM haven't tried to reinvent the wheel using the cash from their recent market dominance)</p><p>Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please ! It 's not a stealth thing at all .
The low power SoC market has always been ARMs .
It 's AMD ( Geode... and then Intel 's Atom ) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market .
If anything the article should focus on the troubles ARM is likely to face in the near future : unless RISC can continue to compete for price ( aggressively ) , I doubt that adding more pipelines will make the general purpose platform developers happy - RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks ; x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed.IMO Transmeta had it right : very long instruction words ( which ultimately do 'everything ' ) .
Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we did n't know " what " we wanted from a clock ( or half clock etc if you 're talking ARM... ) .VLIW will be back soon enough , but I worry that it wont be the right place for ARM .
( nb : I am an ARM fanboy , having 'matured ' in an ARM sponsored undergrad lab .
it upsets me as much as anyone that ARM have n't tried to reinvent the wheel using the cash from their recent market dominance ) Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please!It's not a stealth thing at all.
The low power SoC market has always been ARMs.
It's AMD (Geode... and then Intel's Atom) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market.
If anything the article should focus on the troubles ARM is likely to face in the near future: unless RISC can continue to compete for price (aggressively), I doubt that adding more pipelines will make the general purpose platform developers happy - RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks; x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed.IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything').
Unfortunately it came 10 years too soon and no-one was ready because we didn't know "what" we wanted from a clock (or half clock etc if you're talking ARM...).VLIW will be back soon enough, but I worry that it wont be the right place for ARM.
(nb: I am an ARM fanboy, having 'matured' in an ARM sponsored undergrad lab.
it upsets me as much as anyone that ARM haven't tried to reinvent the wheel using the cash from their recent market dominance)Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903393</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1256728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel once thought VLIW was the future also, thusly making the Itanium IA64 architecture.. and I'm sure you'd know how that turned out for them.</p><p>For VLIW to be properly used compilers would have to significantly improved for the scheduling of out of order instructions at compile time.</p><p>that being said I still need to pick up an IA64 system, it's one of the last remaining on my to get list (have superhitachi, 68k, arm, ppc, sparc, mips, etc etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel once thought VLIW was the future also , thusly making the Itanium IA64 architecture.. and I 'm sure you 'd know how that turned out for them.For VLIW to be properly used compilers would have to significantly improved for the scheduling of out of order instructions at compile time.that being said I still need to pick up an IA64 system , it 's one of the last remaining on my to get list ( have superhitachi , 68k , arm , ppc , sparc , mips , etc etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel once thought VLIW was the future also, thusly making the Itanium IA64 architecture.. and I'm sure you'd know how that turned out for them.For VLIW to be properly used compilers would have to significantly improved for the scheduling of out of order instructions at compile time.that being said I still need to pick up an IA64 system, it's one of the last remaining on my to get list (have superhitachi, 68k, arm, ppc, sparc, mips, etc etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755</id>
	<title>Low power FTW</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1256725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just purchased a Wikireader, which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor, not unlike an ARM. It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries. And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just purchased a Wikireader , which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor , not unlike an ARM .
It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries .
And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just purchased a Wikireader, which uses a low power Epson S1C33E07 60 mhz RISC processor, not unlike an ARM.
It will run for 90 hours on 2 aaa batteries.
And that includes a 240 * 208 capacitive touch screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919523</id>
	<title>Re:ARM/Linux in the Tesla Roadster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its an old ass kernel.  today's kernel is at 2.6.30.foo (foo for I am not sure after that).  I am guessing tesla managed to quash all the bugs and decided to not do anything else as it worked fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its an old ass kernel .
today 's kernel is at 2.6.30.foo ( foo for I am not sure after that ) .
I am guessing tesla managed to quash all the bugs and decided to not do anything else as it worked fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its an old ass kernel.
today's kernel is at 2.6.30.foo (foo for I am not sure after that).
I am guessing tesla managed to quash all the bugs and decided to not do anything else as it worked fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908733</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because x86 allows for greater clock speeds than RISC processors because of "RISC bottlenecks", right?<br>VLIW is really nice if you believe all the academics working on compiler technology and tell how a wonderful work a compiler can do on your code. In the real world I don't really believe in VLIW, but that's a personal opinion.<br>With the many-cores I do believe that RISC processors will make a small-comeback. Probably in the form of the ARM. They may integrate some form of "SLIW" (somewhat long instruction word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ) and also some form of SIMD capabilities.</p><p>Oh! and in the SoC market size of the core really matters, and you also have many companies competing in the ARM market, instead of the virtual duo-poly in x86, and with a huge and growing market supporting them (phones). I think this is a battle that Intel may actually lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because x86 allows for greater clock speeds than RISC processors because of " RISC bottlenecks " , right ? VLIW is really nice if you believe all the academics working on compiler technology and tell how a wonderful work a compiler can do on your code .
In the real world I do n't really believe in VLIW , but that 's a personal opinion.With the many-cores I do believe that RISC processors will make a small-comeback .
Probably in the form of the ARM .
They may integrate some form of " SLIW " ( somewhat long instruction word ; ) ) and also some form of SIMD capabilities.Oh !
and in the SoC market size of the core really matters , and you also have many companies competing in the ARM market , instead of the virtual duo-poly in x86 , and with a huge and growing market supporting them ( phones ) .
I think this is a battle that Intel may actually lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because x86 allows for greater clock speeds than RISC processors because of "RISC bottlenecks", right?VLIW is really nice if you believe all the academics working on compiler technology and tell how a wonderful work a compiler can do on your code.
In the real world I don't really believe in VLIW, but that's a personal opinion.With the many-cores I do believe that RISC processors will make a small-comeback.
Probably in the form of the ARM.
They may integrate some form of "SLIW" (somewhat long instruction word ;) ) and also some form of SIMD capabilities.Oh!
and in the SoC market size of the core really matters, and you also have many companies competing in the ARM market, instead of the virtual duo-poly in x86, and with a huge and growing market supporting them (phones).
I think this is a battle that Intel may actually lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902709</id>
	<title>Windows on low-end?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,'</p></div><p>Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway? You'd be waiting minutes for your web-pages to load.</p><p>Ubuntu has the arm stuff working now, so I want a laptop to install it on. It would keep me from lugging around a big notebook.</p><p>It's interesting they don't talk about the palm pre with armel-linux.</p><p>I've rooted my pre and I can run stuff like ssh or telnet from it, but it would be cool to have something with a larger screen and a keyboard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows,'Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway ?
You 'd be waiting minutes for your web-pages to load.Ubuntu has the arm stuff working now , so I want a laptop to install it on .
It would keep me from lugging around a big notebook.It 's interesting they do n't talk about the palm pre with armel-linux.I 've rooted my pre and I can run stuff like ssh or telnet from it , but it would be cool to have something with a larger screen and a keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,'Who wants windows running on low-end computers anyway?
You'd be waiting minutes for your web-pages to load.Ubuntu has the arm stuff working now, so I want a laptop to install it on.
It would keep me from lugging around a big notebook.It's interesting they don't talk about the palm pre with armel-linux.I've rooted my pre and I can run stuff like ssh or telnet from it, but it would be cool to have something with a larger screen and a keyboard.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906407</id>
	<title>Re:So, where are ARM netbooks?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1256749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait for it, wait for it... $399 for one with a keyboard (twice the Mini-9), and I'm stuck with a "red backcover". And the Mini-9 appears to be getting phased out in preference for a Mini-10, at that.</p><p>Sorry, that's about $100 too expensive, even with a touchscreen. It's got a 1024x600 8.9" display (which is smaller than most netbooks now). What happened to "ARM processors are cheap"? (Oh, and 3lb?)</p><p>The only thing it really seems to offer is 10 hours of battery life. That's nice, but it's only marginally higher than most netbooks these days.</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I'm waiting with baited breath for one of these devices which is actually within the "I can justify" price range ($200 sounds about right, or even a little steep). They need an economy of scale to make these things go anywhere, and unfortunately there simply isn't enough large industry support to push them to the point of acceptance.</p><p>Put a user-friendly Linux distro on them and sell them at Best Buy for $189 as a portable multimedia internet device and they'll fly off the shelves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait for it , wait for it... $ 399 for one with a keyboard ( twice the Mini-9 ) , and I 'm stuck with a " red backcover " .
And the Mini-9 appears to be getting phased out in preference for a Mini-10 , at that.Sorry , that 's about $ 100 too expensive , even with a touchscreen .
It 's got a 1024x600 8.9 " display ( which is smaller than most netbooks now ) .
What happened to " ARM processors are cheap " ?
( Oh , and 3lb ?
) The only thing it really seems to offer is 10 hours of battery life .
That 's nice , but it 's only marginally higher than most netbooks these days.Do n't get me wrong : I 'm waiting with baited breath for one of these devices which is actually within the " I can justify " price range ( $ 200 sounds about right , or even a little steep ) .
They need an economy of scale to make these things go anywhere , and unfortunately there simply is n't enough large industry support to push them to the point of acceptance.Put a user-friendly Linux distro on them and sell them at Best Buy for $ 189 as a portable multimedia internet device and they 'll fly off the shelves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait for it, wait for it... $399 for one with a keyboard (twice the Mini-9), and I'm stuck with a "red backcover".
And the Mini-9 appears to be getting phased out in preference for a Mini-10, at that.Sorry, that's about $100 too expensive, even with a touchscreen.
It's got a 1024x600 8.9" display (which is smaller than most netbooks now).
What happened to "ARM processors are cheap"?
(Oh, and 3lb?
)The only thing it really seems to offer is 10 hours of battery life.
That's nice, but it's only marginally higher than most netbooks these days.Don't get me wrong: I'm waiting with baited breath for one of these devices which is actually within the "I can justify" price range ($200 sounds about right, or even a little steep).
They need an economy of scale to make these things go anywhere, and unfortunately there simply isn't enough large industry support to push them to the point of acceptance.Put a user-friendly Linux distro on them and sell them at Best Buy for $189 as a portable multimedia internet device and they'll fly off the shelves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745</id>
	<title>Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1256725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.</p><p>There might not be "full-featured Windows" on ARM, but saying there's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.There might not be " full-featured Windows " on ARM , but saying there 's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows CE and Windows Mobile both support ARM.There might not be "full-featured Windows" on ARM, but saying there's no Windows at all on ARM is just ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907689</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1256808120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks;</p></div><p>What "RISC bottlenecks" (other than "RISC chip developers don't have the money that Intel does") are there that aren't also bottlenecks for x86?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed.</p></div><p>...and the RISC vendors can't?  (Not that Intel is exactly "simply [gunning] for greater clock speed" - I don't think they've yet come out with a post-NetBurst processor that has a clock speed as fast as the fastest NetBurst had.  That suggests that clock speed isn't everything....)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything').</p></div><p>...devoted to implementing x86, so that you never actually saw the native instruction sets ("sets", plural, as I think their first processor and second processor had different underlying instruction sets).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks ; What " RISC bottlenecks " ( other than " RISC chip developers do n't have the money that Intel does " ) are there that are n't also bottlenecks for x86 ? x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed....and the RISC vendors ca n't ?
( Not that Intel is exactly " simply [ gunning ] for greater clock speed " - I do n't think they 've yet come out with a post-NetBurst processor that has a clock speed as fast as the fastest NetBurst had .
That suggests that clock speed is n't everything.... ) IMO Transmeta had it right : very long instruction words ( which ultimately do 'everything ' ) ....devoted to implementing x86 , so that you never actually saw the native instruction sets ( " sets " , plural , as I think their first processor and second processor had different underlying instruction sets ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks;What "RISC bottlenecks" (other than "RISC chip developers don't have the money that Intel does") are there that aren't also bottlenecks for x86?x86 can simply gun for greater clock speed....and the RISC vendors can't?
(Not that Intel is exactly "simply [gunning] for greater clock speed" - I don't think they've yet come out with a post-NetBurst processor that has a clock speed as fast as the fastest NetBurst had.
That suggests that clock speed isn't everything....)IMO Transmeta had it right: very long instruction words (which ultimately do 'everything')....devoted to implementing x86, so that you never actually saw the native instruction sets ("sets", plural, as I think their first processor and second processor had different underlying instruction sets).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29910017</id>
	<title>Unique Licensing Model?</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1256830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this unique licensing model, how is it different from standard chip licensing models, and why is Arm's success due to it?<br>Don't manufacturers just pay some fee for every chip?  Where does this license come into play?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this unique licensing model , how is it different from standard chip licensing models , and why is Arm 's success due to it ? Do n't manufacturers just pay some fee for every chip ?
Where does this license come into play ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this unique licensing model, how is it different from standard chip licensing models, and why is Arm's success due to it?Don't manufacturers just pay some fee for every chip?
Where does this license come into play?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904359</id>
	<title>Re:Gadgets not laptops</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1256734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that a netbook really *is* a gadget. The screen is too small for most general purpose computing. It only does a few tasks, but does them well. As for real OSes, once there is a device you'll see the development. It happened with Linux for the Atom networks, and it will happen if ARM netbooks come out. As for your analysis on UIs... eh, that's subjective. I'm loving netbook remix, but I'm also not trying to use it as my regular computer. The thing I love about it is in a pinch, yes-- it will do whatever my main computer will do-- but as I typically use it, it is very quick to navigate.
<br> <br>
Also-- your signature versus the current moderation (redundant) on your post his hilarious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that a netbook really * is * a gadget .
The screen is too small for most general purpose computing .
It only does a few tasks , but does them well .
As for real OSes , once there is a device you 'll see the development .
It happened with Linux for the Atom networks , and it will happen if ARM netbooks come out .
As for your analysis on UIs... eh , that 's subjective .
I 'm loving netbook remix , but I 'm also not trying to use it as my regular computer .
The thing I love about it is in a pinch , yes-- it will do whatever my main computer will do-- but as I typically use it , it is very quick to navigate .
Also-- your signature versus the current moderation ( redundant ) on your post his hilarious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that a netbook really *is* a gadget.
The screen is too small for most general purpose computing.
It only does a few tasks, but does them well.
As for real OSes, once there is a device you'll see the development.
It happened with Linux for the Atom networks, and it will happen if ARM netbooks come out.
As for your analysis on UIs... eh, that's subjective.
I'm loving netbook remix, but I'm also not trying to use it as my regular computer.
The thing I love about it is in a pinch, yes-- it will do whatever my main computer will do-- but as I typically use it, it is very quick to navigate.
Also-- your signature versus the current moderation (redundant) on your post his hilarious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903233</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>maczealot</author>
	<datestamp>1256727540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed.  Stealthy it is not, nor new:

<a href="http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/stats/newton\_mp\_100.html" title="everymac.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/stats/newton\_mp\_100.html</a> [everymac.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Stealthy it is not , nor new : http : //www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/stats/newton \ _mp \ _100.html [ everymac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Stealthy it is not, nor new:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/stats/newton\_mp\_100.html [everymac.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919751</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of Acorn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cortex a9 is quad superscalar processor that goes up to 2ghz on each core with a respectable graphics dsp and io controller on die that at load uses 2 watts.  atoms are inline single and dual core processors that currently have to have all of their chipset components outside the chip, they use five watts of power at load(which doesn't include chipset), and intel's current graphics offerings were anemic four years ago. A9 in terms of real world and MIPS performance spank the atom in every code performance category.  also, arm chips cost half as much as intel chips to manufacture and do not need extremely advanced manufacturing techniques to stay competitive.  the final nail in the atom coffin is that intel (in colusion with microsoft) insists on power plays with oems with such inane limitations such as mandating screen size limits, ram limits, and not allowing pcie, as well as making life as difficult as possible for chipset manufacturers (NVIDIA ION anyone?) Arm manufacturers, on the other hand, will sell chips to anybody and don't deal in this sort of market manipulation</p><p>in short, the sooner ARM can kick intel where it hurts, their market domination, the better</p><p>hell, if AMD could find a way to modify amd64 to use the ARM instruction set as a base, intel would be in deep trouble (EM64 is nothing but intel saving face by using amd technology and if they lost their licence to use it, say goodbye to the I7/I5 and core2 series)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cortex a9 is quad superscalar processor that goes up to 2ghz on each core with a respectable graphics dsp and io controller on die that at load uses 2 watts .
atoms are inline single and dual core processors that currently have to have all of their chipset components outside the chip , they use five watts of power at load ( which does n't include chipset ) , and intel 's current graphics offerings were anemic four years ago .
A9 in terms of real world and MIPS performance spank the atom in every code performance category .
also , arm chips cost half as much as intel chips to manufacture and do not need extremely advanced manufacturing techniques to stay competitive .
the final nail in the atom coffin is that intel ( in colusion with microsoft ) insists on power plays with oems with such inane limitations such as mandating screen size limits , ram limits , and not allowing pcie , as well as making life as difficult as possible for chipset manufacturers ( NVIDIA ION anyone ?
) Arm manufacturers , on the other hand , will sell chips to anybody and do n't deal in this sort of market manipulationin short , the sooner ARM can kick intel where it hurts , their market domination , the betterhell , if AMD could find a way to modify amd64 to use the ARM instruction set as a base , intel would be in deep trouble ( EM64 is nothing but intel saving face by using amd technology and if they lost their licence to use it , say goodbye to the I7/I5 and core2 series )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cortex a9 is quad superscalar processor that goes up to 2ghz on each core with a respectable graphics dsp and io controller on die that at load uses 2 watts.
atoms are inline single and dual core processors that currently have to have all of their chipset components outside the chip, they use five watts of power at load(which doesn't include chipset), and intel's current graphics offerings were anemic four years ago.
A9 in terms of real world and MIPS performance spank the atom in every code performance category.
also, arm chips cost half as much as intel chips to manufacture and do not need extremely advanced manufacturing techniques to stay competitive.
the final nail in the atom coffin is that intel (in colusion with microsoft) insists on power plays with oems with such inane limitations such as mandating screen size limits, ram limits, and not allowing pcie, as well as making life as difficult as possible for chipset manufacturers (NVIDIA ION anyone?
) Arm manufacturers, on the other hand, will sell chips to anybody and don't deal in this sort of market manipulationin short, the sooner ARM can kick intel where it hurts, their market domination, the betterhell, if AMD could find a way to modify amd64 to use the ARM instruction set as a base, intel would be in deep trouble (EM64 is nothing but intel saving face by using amd technology and if they lost their licence to use it, say goodbye to the I7/I5 and core2 series)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...</p><p>It is partially source compatible, but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand, makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they work (i have a sheevaplug running gentoo and i have done exactly that).</p><p>People buy windows because it runs the applications they have or are familiar with, the versions of windows which run on arm don't provide this.. Linux has a greater chance of running apps users will find familiar, since there are ports of things like firefox to arm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can not run the same applications as windows , therefore it 's not windows...It is partially source compatible , but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand , makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they work ( i have a sheevaplug running gentoo and i have done exactly that ) .People buy windows because it runs the applications they have or are familiar with , the versions of windows which run on arm do n't provide this.. Linux has a greater chance of running apps users will find familiar , since there are ports of things like firefox to arm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...It is partially source compatible, but not enough to make any but the simplest of apps a direct compile... Linux/arm on the other hand, makes it possible to simply recompile the vast majority of applications so that they work (i have a sheevaplug running gentoo and i have done exactly that).People buy windows because it runs the applications they have or are familiar with, the versions of windows which run on arm don't provide this.. Linux has a greater chance of running apps users will find familiar, since there are ports of things like firefox to arm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906335</id>
	<title>Re:ARM/Linux in the Tesla Roadster</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1256748360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0.</p></div><p>Oh, THAT kernel version! Yes, I know exactly what it means.</p><p>I mean, seriously folks. I've been using Linux regularly since '98, on servers since 2000, and almost exclusively for personal use since around 2001. WTF does that kernel version even <i>mean</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0.Oh , THAT kernel version !
Yes , I know exactly what it means.I mean , seriously folks .
I 've been using Linux regularly since '98 , on servers since 2000 , and almost exclusively for personal use since around 2001 .
WTF does that kernel version even mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>running Linux kernel 2.6.11.8-1.3.0.Oh, THAT kernel version!
Yes, I know exactly what it means.I mean, seriously folks.
I've been using Linux regularly since '98, on servers since 2000, and almost exclusively for personal use since around 2001.
WTF does that kernel version even mean?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903069</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1256726760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's not a stealth thing at all. The low power SoC market has always been ARMs. It's AMD (Geode... and then Intel's Atom) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, but they're still not really low power and neither are their boards.  They're not competing with Arm yet, in that sense.</p><p>I'll say they might be in trouble when I see first see a decent cell phone running intel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a stealth thing at all .
The low power SoC market has always been ARMs .
It 's AMD ( Geode... and then Intel 's Atom ) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market.Yeah , but they 're still not really low power and neither are their boards .
They 're not competing with Arm yet , in that sense.I 'll say they might be in trouble when I see first see a decent cell phone running intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a stealth thing at all.
The low power SoC market has always been ARMs.
It's AMD (Geode... and then Intel's Atom) who decided to bring x86 to the low power market.Yeah, but they're still not really low power and neither are their boards.
They're not competing with Arm yet, in that sense.I'll say they might be in trouble when I see first see a decent cell phone running intel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903159</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it doesn't have a leg to stand on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it does n't have a leg to stand on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it doesn't have a leg to stand on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902763</id>
	<title>stealthily?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far too stealthily for my taste!  Let's get lots of netbooks/notebooks with ARM so we have some choice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far too stealthily for my taste !
Let 's get lots of netbooks/notebooks with ARM so we have some choice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far too stealthily for my taste!
Let's get lots of netbooks/notebooks with ARM so we have some choice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902717</id>
	<title>I'll take three, thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" 'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes"</p><p>I'm sold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'One thing ARM does n't have , however , is Windows, ' McAllister writes " I 'm sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" 'One thing ARM doesn't have, however, is Windows,' McAllister writes"I'm sold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904193</id>
	<title>Re:MAME</title>
	<author>Nuno Sa</author>
	<datestamp>1256733240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we need PC-like motherboards. Mini-itx or even uATX. With slots for real RAM, PCI(e) and such.</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1417307&amp;cid=29869065" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">My previous comment on this very subject a few days ago</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we need PC-like motherboards .
Mini-itx or even uATX .
With slots for real RAM , PCI ( e ) and such.My previous comment on this very subject a few days ago [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we need PC-like motherboards.
Mini-itx or even uATX.
With slots for real RAM, PCI(e) and such.My previous comment on this very subject a few days ago [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906301</id>
	<title>Re:I'm running Windows on ARM *right now*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256748180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other difference to the application, of course, is that the app isn't compiled for ARM instructions, they're compiled for x86 instructions. As the main reason Windows people stick with Windows is the applications that are available for it, and given that the majority of those applications are compiled for x86, this is a big sticking point.</p><p>Of course, developers could "just" recompile targeting ARM, but the problem is that they <i>don't</i>. It's just one more thing to have to test and debug before getting the product stamped with a new version number and punted out the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other difference to the application , of course , is that the app is n't compiled for ARM instructions , they 're compiled for x86 instructions .
As the main reason Windows people stick with Windows is the applications that are available for it , and given that the majority of those applications are compiled for x86 , this is a big sticking point.Of course , developers could " just " recompile targeting ARM , but the problem is that they do n't .
It 's just one more thing to have to test and debug before getting the product stamped with a new version number and punted out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other difference to the application, of course, is that the app isn't compiled for ARM instructions, they're compiled for x86 instructions.
As the main reason Windows people stick with Windows is the applications that are available for it, and given that the majority of those applications are compiled for x86, this is a big sticking point.Of course, developers could "just" recompile targeting ARM, but the problem is that they don't.
It's just one more thing to have to test and debug before getting the product stamped with a new version number and punted out the door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904183</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>Erich</author>
	<datestamp>1256733180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>VLIW will be back soon enough</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Sooner than you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VLIW will be back soon enough Sooner than you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VLIW will be back soon enough

Sooner than you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904965</id>
	<title>Re:Fast is not always best</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1256737740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up until 2 months ago, my main development box was an AMD Athalon 1700+. My Java work was through Eclipse, my web work was in vim over an SSH connection to my server, and both were capable of running faster than I could type.
</p><p>I've given away faster systems because I didn't need anything faster for what the box was. I finally upgraded because the MB melted down in a thunder storm. The need to wave around the biggest E-penis is counter productive for most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up until 2 months ago , my main development box was an AMD Athalon 1700 + .
My Java work was through Eclipse , my web work was in vim over an SSH connection to my server , and both were capable of running faster than I could type .
I 've given away faster systems because I did n't need anything faster for what the box was .
I finally upgraded because the MB melted down in a thunder storm .
The need to wave around the biggest E-penis is counter productive for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up until 2 months ago, my main development box was an AMD Athalon 1700+.
My Java work was through Eclipse, my web work was in vim over an SSH connection to my server, and both were capable of running faster than I could type.
I've given away faster systems because I didn't need anything faster for what the box was.
I finally upgraded because the MB melted down in a thunder storm.
The need to wave around the biggest E-penis is counter productive for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903289</id>
	<title>Yuo f4il it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knows that 3ver From a technical users', BigAzz, roots a8nd gets on Users With Large NIGGERS EVERYWHERE to any BSD project,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knows that 3ver From a technical users ' , BigAzz , roots a8nd gets on Users With Large NIGGERS EVERYWHERE to any BSD project,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knows that 3ver From a technical users', BigAzz, roots a8nd gets on Users With Large NIGGERS EVERYWHERE to any BSD project,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245</id>
	<title>No mention of Acorn?</title>
	<author>QJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1256733540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprising nobody's mentioned Acorn Computers, the British company that actually gave us ARM. At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips, in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz, where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so. The advantages of the RISC architecture were also clearly present, with a higher MIPS rate. But of course the Windows beast could not be slain, and ARM went into portable devices, and became the most successful legacy of the Acorn era.</p><p>Acorn is still around today in the form of Castle, Advantage Six and others, but it lives only really through enthusiast support. With ARM changing their focus to low power consumption (the reason they were able to step into the portable market in the first place), speed became less of an issue. The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz (in the form of the XScale), and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.</p><p>I'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86, Apple managed it after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprising nobody 's mentioned Acorn Computers , the British company that actually gave us ARM .
At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips , in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz , where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so .
The advantages of the RISC architecture were also clearly present , with a higher MIPS rate .
But of course the Windows beast could not be slain , and ARM went into portable devices , and became the most successful legacy of the Acorn era.Acorn is still around today in the form of Castle , Advantage Six and others , but it lives only really through enthusiast support .
With ARM changing their focus to low power consumption ( the reason they were able to step into the portable market in the first place ) , speed became less of an issue .
The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz ( in the form of the XScale ) , and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.I 'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86 , Apple managed it after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprising nobody's mentioned Acorn Computers, the British company that actually gave us ARM.
At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips, in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz, where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so.
The advantages of the RISC architecture were also clearly present, with a higher MIPS rate.
But of course the Windows beast could not be slain, and ARM went into portable devices, and became the most successful legacy of the Acorn era.Acorn is still around today in the form of Castle, Advantage Six and others, but it lives only really through enthusiast support.
With ARM changing their focus to low power consumption (the reason they were able to step into the portable market in the first place), speed became less of an issue.
The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz (in the form of the XScale), and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.I'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86, Apple managed it after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902991</id>
	<title>Re:OS/X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's iGadgets are ARM-based and run a variant of OS/X. Of course, ARM also has WinCE, so that kind of balances the karma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's iGadgets are ARM-based and run a variant of OS/X .
Of course , ARM also has WinCE , so that kind of balances the karma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's iGadgets are ARM-based and run a variant of OS/X.
Of course, ARM also has WinCE, so that kind of balances the karma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009</id>
	<title>90 Chips/Second?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's 7,776,000 chips/day.  I find that more than hard to believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 7,776,000 chips/day .
I find that more than hard to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 7,776,000 chips/day.
I find that more than hard to believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908691</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1256822700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's actually been quite a few enthusiast-oriented ARM development boards as of late. In addition to the BeagleBoard and Gumstix...</p><p>Marvell OpenRD Client: <a href="http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx" title="globalscal...logies.com">http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx</a> [globalscal...logies.com] (much more desktop-oriented, albeit barely able to keep up with Beagle and Gumstix in integer, and lagging WAY behind in floating point (no FPU.))<br>Genesi EFIKA MX Open Client: <a href="http://www.genesi-usa.com/products/efika" title="genesi-usa.com">http://www.genesi-usa.com/products/efika</a> [genesi-usa.com]</p><p>Of course, there's always the <a href="http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/A300.html" title="chriswhy.co.uk">Acorn Archimedes 305</a> [chriswhy.co.uk], which is a complete ARM-based desktop, and is very much aimed at consumers, not just enthusiasts. 8 MHz ARM2 (there were some ARM1s that made it into the public, but they were aimed at developers, not consumers,) 512 kiB RAM, one 800 kiB floppy drive, no hard drive. And for 1987, it was ridiculously fast - IIRC, the only thing that wasn't a *nix workstation that could come within striking distance was a 25 MHz 386, and those cost quite a few times more money for an equivalent spec (and, there was a version of the A440 (same thing with a hard drive interface and 4 MiB RAM) called the R140, which was actually a *nix workstation running a 4.3BSD variant.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's actually been quite a few enthusiast-oriented ARM development boards as of late .
In addition to the BeagleBoard and Gumstix...Marvell OpenRD Client : http : //www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx [ globalscal...logies.com ] ( much more desktop-oriented , albeit barely able to keep up with Beagle and Gumstix in integer , and lagging WAY behind in floating point ( no FPU .
) ) Genesi EFIKA MX Open Client : http : //www.genesi-usa.com/products/efika [ genesi-usa.com ] Of course , there 's always the Acorn Archimedes 305 [ chriswhy.co.uk ] , which is a complete ARM-based desktop , and is very much aimed at consumers , not just enthusiasts .
8 MHz ARM2 ( there were some ARM1s that made it into the public , but they were aimed at developers , not consumers , ) 512 kiB RAM , one 800 kiB floppy drive , no hard drive .
And for 1987 , it was ridiculously fast - IIRC , the only thing that was n't a * nix workstation that could come within striking distance was a 25 MHz 386 , and those cost quite a few times more money for an equivalent spec ( and , there was a version of the A440 ( same thing with a hard drive interface and 4 MiB RAM ) called the R140 , which was actually a * nix workstation running a 4.3BSD variant .
) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's actually been quite a few enthusiast-oriented ARM development boards as of late.
In addition to the BeagleBoard and Gumstix...Marvell OpenRD Client: http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx [globalscal...logies.com] (much more desktop-oriented, albeit barely able to keep up with Beagle and Gumstix in integer, and lagging WAY behind in floating point (no FPU.
))Genesi EFIKA MX Open Client: http://www.genesi-usa.com/products/efika [genesi-usa.com]Of course, there's always the Acorn Archimedes 305 [chriswhy.co.uk], which is a complete ARM-based desktop, and is very much aimed at consumers, not just enthusiasts.
8 MHz ARM2 (there were some ARM1s that made it into the public, but they were aimed at developers, not consumers,) 512 kiB RAM, one 800 kiB floppy drive, no hard drive.
And for 1987, it was ridiculously fast - IIRC, the only thing that wasn't a *nix workstation that could come within striking distance was a 25 MHz 386, and those cost quite a few times more money for an equivalent spec (and, there was a version of the A440 (same thing with a hard drive interface and 4 MiB RAM) called the R140, which was actually a *nix workstation running a 4.3BSD variant.
) ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905729</id>
	<title>You can bet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dollars to doughnuts, you can bet that Microsoft is working on porting Windows 7 and Office, as well as their various other software packages, to ARM processors. With ARM breeching the 1GHz mark and fully capable 3d acceleration, they're at least on par with an Intel chipseted Atom, and in many ways vastly superior. With most people preferring "as cheap as possible" computers - because they'll do the job just fine - things are sure to move towards ARM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dollars to doughnuts , you can bet that Microsoft is working on porting Windows 7 and Office , as well as their various other software packages , to ARM processors .
With ARM breeching the 1GHz mark and fully capable 3d acceleration , they 're at least on par with an Intel chipseted Atom , and in many ways vastly superior .
With most people preferring " as cheap as possible " computers - because they 'll do the job just fine - things are sure to move towards ARM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dollars to doughnuts, you can bet that Microsoft is working on porting Windows 7 and Office, as well as their various other software packages, to ARM processors.
With ARM breeching the 1GHz mark and fully capable 3d acceleration, they're at least on par with an Intel chipseted Atom, and in many ways vastly superior.
With most people preferring "as cheap as possible" computers - because they'll do the job just fine - things are sure to move towards ARM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913</id>
	<title>OS/X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908619</id>
	<title>Re:looks like Slashdot really wants this</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1256821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a possibly credible threat to x86, which quite a few people have wanted to see die since before x86 was called "IA-32."</p><p>In addition, it can't run full Windows, so to work, it's Linux or bust (let's face it, even if you like WinCE, it's totally unsuited to this application,) and this is a Linux-biased site.</p><p>That's why Slashdot would want to see this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a possibly credible threat to x86 , which quite a few people have wanted to see die since before x86 was called " IA-32 .
" In addition , it ca n't run full Windows , so to work , it 's Linux or bust ( let 's face it , even if you like WinCE , it 's totally unsuited to this application , ) and this is a Linux-biased site.That 's why Slashdot would want to see this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a possibly credible threat to x86, which quite a few people have wanted to see die since before x86 was called "IA-32.
"In addition, it can't run full Windows, so to work, it's Linux or bust (let's face it, even if you like WinCE, it's totally unsuited to this application,) and this is a Linux-biased site.That's why Slashdot would want to see this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903671</id>
	<title>Re:It's JVC's VHS-C versus Sony's Video8 again</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1256729940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>VHS-C was compatible with people's home machines, so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations, and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV. With Sony's Video8 that wasn't possible, so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.</p></div></blockquote><p>Be careful about assuming causation here.  It might have easily been that VHS-C sounded familiar to people who had VHS, and they went with what they knew.  Video8 might have been just as successful if the names had simply been reversed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VHS-C was compatible with people 's home machines , so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations , and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV .
With Sony 's Video8 that was n't possible , so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.Be careful about assuming causation here .
It might have easily been that VHS-C sounded familiar to people who had VHS , and they went with what they knew .
Video8 might have been just as successful if the names had simply been reversed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VHS-C was compatible with people's home machines, so you could use your camcorder to tape family or vacations, and then just pop it into your VHS VCR to watch it on the big screen TV.
With Sony's Video8 that wasn't possible, so VHS-C quickly dominated the camcorder market.Be careful about assuming causation here.
It might have easily been that VHS-C sounded familiar to people who had VHS, and they went with what they knew.
Video8 might have been just as successful if the names had simply been reversed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908119</id>
	<title>The ARM is an incredibly good chip...</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1256815080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a fan of the ARM for years, ever since I encountered them in high school in Acorn Archimedes computers. The instruction set was so elegant compared to the i486 and Motorola 68k series chips that it was up against at the time. Flat memory model, none of this segment:offset stuff on the intel platform and a really well-thought-out streamlined set of core instructions.</p><p>I've recently got my hands on an ARM platform, and compared to what I was playing with in school, this thing is light-years ahead. 600HMz ARM, 256MB RAM, 256MB NAND Flash, GPU with ~10M polys/sec, SD Card Interface, High-speed USB 2.0 etc etc. It's all on a board that's 3" square, draws something like 1.75W at full tilt (it is powered from one of it's USB ports) and costs $150USD. No moving parts, not even a fan. 100\% solid state.</p><p>I'm currently running Ubuntu on it, but there are other systems like Angstrom and QNX that will happily boot on it as well. Boot the OS off SD card, swap them out to switch operating environments and it's all good.</p><p><a href="http://automatica.com.au/blog/2009/10/the-beagleboard/" title="automatica.com.au">http://automatica.com.au/blog/2009/10/the-beagleboard/</a> [automatica.com.au]</p><p><a href="http://beagleboard.org/" title="beagleboard.org">http://beagleboard.org/</a> [beagleboard.org]</p><p>I've got no affiliation with Texas Instruments or anything like that, I'm just a happy customer who is amazed at the power of this platform, it's low cost, low power usage and flexibility opens the doors to doing so many things with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a fan of the ARM for years , ever since I encountered them in high school in Acorn Archimedes computers .
The instruction set was so elegant compared to the i486 and Motorola 68k series chips that it was up against at the time .
Flat memory model , none of this segment : offset stuff on the intel platform and a really well-thought-out streamlined set of core instructions.I 've recently got my hands on an ARM platform , and compared to what I was playing with in school , this thing is light-years ahead .
600HMz ARM , 256MB RAM , 256MB NAND Flash , GPU with ~ 10M polys/sec , SD Card Interface , High-speed USB 2.0 etc etc .
It 's all on a board that 's 3 " square , draws something like 1.75W at full tilt ( it is powered from one of it 's USB ports ) and costs $ 150USD .
No moving parts , not even a fan .
100 \ % solid state.I 'm currently running Ubuntu on it , but there are other systems like Angstrom and QNX that will happily boot on it as well .
Boot the OS off SD card , swap them out to switch operating environments and it 's all good.http : //automatica.com.au/blog/2009/10/the-beagleboard/ [ automatica.com.au ] http : //beagleboard.org/ [ beagleboard.org ] I 've got no affiliation with Texas Instruments or anything like that , I 'm just a happy customer who is amazed at the power of this platform , it 's low cost , low power usage and flexibility opens the doors to doing so many things with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a fan of the ARM for years, ever since I encountered them in high school in Acorn Archimedes computers.
The instruction set was so elegant compared to the i486 and Motorola 68k series chips that it was up against at the time.
Flat memory model, none of this segment:offset stuff on the intel platform and a really well-thought-out streamlined set of core instructions.I've recently got my hands on an ARM platform, and compared to what I was playing with in school, this thing is light-years ahead.
600HMz ARM, 256MB RAM, 256MB NAND Flash, GPU with ~10M polys/sec, SD Card Interface, High-speed USB 2.0 etc etc.
It's all on a board that's 3" square, draws something like 1.75W at full tilt (it is powered from one of it's USB ports) and costs $150USD.
No moving parts, not even a fan.
100\% solid state.I'm currently running Ubuntu on it, but there are other systems like Angstrom and QNX that will happily boot on it as well.
Boot the OS off SD card, swap them out to switch operating environments and it's all good.http://automatica.com.au/blog/2009/10/the-beagleboard/ [automatica.com.au]http://beagleboard.org/ [beagleboard.org]I've got no affiliation with Texas Instruments or anything like that, I'm just a happy customer who is amazed at the power of this platform, it's low cost, low power usage and flexibility opens the doors to doing so many things with it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903897</id>
	<title>So AMD is squezed from both ends now</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1256731380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Intel has a monopoly on high-end CPUs right now while AMD is pretty much alone in delivering band-for-the-buck budget CPUs. Now ARM is trying to take on the really cheap budget segment? That is bad news for AMD, far worse news for them than it is for the Intel empire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Intel has a monopoly on high-end CPUs right now while AMD is pretty much alone in delivering band-for-the-buck budget CPUs .
Now ARM is trying to take on the really cheap budget segment ?
That is bad news for AMD , far worse news for them than it is for the Intel empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Intel has a monopoly on high-end CPUs right now while AMD is pretty much alone in delivering band-for-the-buck budget CPUs.
Now ARM is trying to take on the really cheap budget segment?
That is bad news for AMD, far worse news for them than it is for the Intel empire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906683</id>
	<title>Re:Stealthily?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks" Huh?  I think you mean CISC bottlenecks.<br>Clock speed is an implementation feature, not a ISA feature.  RISC has higher clock speed right now too.</p><p>All things equal an x86 chip would lose significantly to ARM/POWER/Sparc.  Fortunately for Intel/AMD all things aren't equal and the non ISA issues compensate for x86's problems.  AMD's 64bit extension is very good.  But if Intel was making an RISC mainstream chip and ARM was trying to sell an x86 CISC chip you can be certain that CISC would actually have died.</p><p>Don't believe the hype, VLIW will be here when we have rotary engines displace piston engines and commercial airlines switch to Flying Wing aircraft instead of tube+wing design.  Great theory to overcome one engineering problem, but introduces enough small ones that it isn't practical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks " Huh ?
I think you mean CISC bottlenecks.Clock speed is an implementation feature , not a ISA feature .
RISC has higher clock speed right now too.All things equal an x86 chip would lose significantly to ARM/POWER/Sparc .
Fortunately for Intel/AMD all things are n't equal and the non ISA issues compensate for x86 's problems .
AMD 's 64bit extension is very good .
But if Intel was making an RISC mainstream chip and ARM was trying to sell an x86 CISC chip you can be certain that CISC would actually have died.Do n't believe the hype , VLIW will be here when we have rotary engines displace piston engines and commercial airlines switch to Flying Wing aircraft instead of tube + wing design .
Great theory to overcome one engineering problem , but introduces enough small ones that it is n't practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"RISC bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks" Huh?
I think you mean CISC bottlenecks.Clock speed is an implementation feature, not a ISA feature.
RISC has higher clock speed right now too.All things equal an x86 chip would lose significantly to ARM/POWER/Sparc.
Fortunately for Intel/AMD all things aren't equal and the non ISA issues compensate for x86's problems.
AMD's 64bit extension is very good.
But if Intel was making an RISC mainstream chip and ARM was trying to sell an x86 CISC chip you can be certain that CISC would actually have died.Don't believe the hype, VLIW will be here when we have rotary engines displace piston engines and commercial airlines switch to Flying Wing aircraft instead of tube+wing design.
Great theory to overcome one engineering problem, but introduces enough small ones that it isn't practical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902617</id>
	<title>MAME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just release MAME for a popular ARM motherboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just release MAME for a popular ARM motherboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just release MAME for a popular ARM motherboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29954864</id>
	<title>Re:Windows CE and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1257155820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the "developer" needs to do..<br>What if the developers have no interest in an ARM port? most windows software only comes as binaries, and some is abandonware...</p><p>And it's more than just a straight recompile, the API is similar but different, and the underlying kernel is totally different. Unlike Linux, where the kernel and APIs are the same, most apps are a recompile away (and have often already been compiled for arm by distro maintainers) and most apps come with source code enabling third parties (including those with vested interests like the hardware makers) to compile the apps if the developers won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the " developer " needs to do..What if the developers have no interest in an ARM port ?
most windows software only comes as binaries , and some is abandonware...And it 's more than just a straight recompile , the API is similar but different , and the underlying kernel is totally different .
Unlike Linux , where the kernel and APIs are the same , most apps are a recompile away ( and have often already been compiled for arm by distro maintainers ) and most apps come with source code enabling third parties ( including those with vested interests like the hardware makers ) to compile the apps if the developers wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the "developer" needs to do..What if the developers have no interest in an ARM port?
most windows software only comes as binaries, and some is abandonware...And it's more than just a straight recompile, the API is similar but different, and the underlying kernel is totally different.
Unlike Linux, where the kernel and APIs are the same, most apps are a recompile away (and have often already been compiled for arm by distro maintainers) and most apps come with source code enabling third parties (including those with vested interests like the hardware makers) to compile the apps if the developers won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905309</id>
	<title>just don't call it a computer</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1256740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you sell people a 'computer' they'll expect it to run windows or at least run all their 'PC' software, but if you sell it as a PDA or a smartphone, or a netgadget thingy then they won't expect it to run 'PC' software and so won't mind that it doesn't.<br>eg. the iPhone is widely populate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you sell people a 'computer ' they 'll expect it to run windows or at least run all their 'PC ' software , but if you sell it as a PDA or a smartphone , or a netgadget thingy then they wo n't expect it to run 'PC ' software and so wo n't mind that it does n't.eg .
the iPhone is widely populate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you sell people a 'computer' they'll expect it to run windows or at least run all their 'PC' software, but if you sell it as a PDA or a smartphone, or a netgadget thingy then they won't expect it to run 'PC' software and so won't mind that it doesn't.eg.
the iPhone is widely populate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902729</id>
	<title>Almost 3 billion chips this year?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90*60*60*24*365= about 2.8 billion<br>Is that for real or is it a typo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 = about 2.8 billionIs that for real or is it a typo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90*60*60*24*365= about 2.8 billionIs that for real or is it a typo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29910093</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of Acorn?</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1256830320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips, in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz, where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so.</p></div><p>Actually...

</p><p>The ARM largely predates the Intel hegemony. Acorn designed it in about 1984 as a successor to the 6502 for the simple reason that they couldn't find any other processor that was <i>fast</i> enough to compete with the 6502! State of the art for 16 or 32 bit processors then were chips like the 68000, which had lousy interrupt performance.

</p><p>The first actual ARM computer was the Archimedes, which shipped in 1987. (Prior to that it had existed only as a second processor addon for the 6502-based BBC Micro.) It used a 16MHz ARM2. At the time the only Intel 32-bit processor was the iAPX;  the 286 ruled the desktop market. The 386 would come out in 1988.

</p><p>As you say, the RISC PC came out in the mid-90s with a StrongARM, but by then Intel was working on the early Pentiums, and had pretty much won the desktop market.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz...</p></div><p>I have a SheevaPlug running at 1.2GHz; actual speed for integer stuff appears to roughly equivalent to a 500MHz Pentium. (<a href="http://www.cowlark.com/2009-04-15-sheevaplug/" title="cowlark.com">Benchmarks here</a> [cowlark.com].)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86, Apple managed it after all.</p></div><p>Impossible, alas. RISC OS is a huge pile of undocumented hand-written ARM machine code. You'd need to rewrite it from scratch, from the ground up, to change architecture. Even just cleaning up the worst bugs (friends don't let friends allocate memory inside interrupt handlers) looks to be infeasible.

</p><p>OTOH if you want bug-for-bug compatibility, someone <a href="http://beagleboard.org/project/riscos/" title="beagleboard.org">has it working on the BeagleBoard</a> [beagleboard.org]...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips , in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz , where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so.Actually.. . The ARM largely predates the Intel hegemony .
Acorn designed it in about 1984 as a successor to the 6502 for the simple reason that they could n't find any other processor that was fast enough to compete with the 6502 !
State of the art for 16 or 32 bit processors then were chips like the 68000 , which had lousy interrupt performance .
The first actual ARM computer was the Archimedes , which shipped in 1987 .
( Prior to that it had existed only as a second processor addon for the 6502-based BBC Micro .
) It used a 16MHz ARM2 .
At the time the only Intel 32-bit processor was the iAPX ; the 286 ruled the desktop market .
The 386 would come out in 1988 .
As you say , the RISC PC came out in the mid-90s with a StrongARM , but by then Intel was working on the early Pentiums , and had pretty much won the desktop market.The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz...I have a SheevaPlug running at 1.2GHz ; actual speed for integer stuff appears to roughly equivalent to a 500MHz Pentium .
( Benchmarks here [ cowlark.com ] .
) I 'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86 , Apple managed it after all.Impossible , alas .
RISC OS is a huge pile of undocumented hand-written ARM machine code .
You 'd need to rewrite it from scratch , from the ground up , to change architecture .
Even just cleaning up the worst bugs ( friends do n't let friends allocate memory inside interrupt handlers ) looks to be infeasible .
OTOH if you want bug-for-bug compatibility , someone has it working on the BeagleBoard [ beagleboard.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time Acorn simply used ARM to compete with Intel chips, in 1995 when the StrongARM Risc PC came out it was 233MHz, where as the latest Intel Pentium was 200Mhz or so.Actually...

The ARM largely predates the Intel hegemony.
Acorn designed it in about 1984 as a successor to the 6502 for the simple reason that they couldn't find any other processor that was fast enough to compete with the 6502!
State of the art for 16 or 32 bit processors then were chips like the 68000, which had lousy interrupt performance.
The first actual ARM computer was the Archimedes, which shipped in 1987.
(Prior to that it had existed only as a second processor addon for the 6502-based BBC Micro.
) It used a 16MHz ARM2.
At the time the only Intel 32-bit processor was the iAPX;  the 286 ruled the desktop market.
The 386 would come out in 1988.
As you say, the RISC PC came out in the mid-90s with a StrongARM, but by then Intel was working on the early Pentiums, and had pretty much won the desktop market.The fastest ARM processors today are only 806mhz...I have a SheevaPlug running at 1.2GHz; actual speed for integer stuff appears to roughly equivalent to a 500MHz Pentium.
(Benchmarks here [cowlark.com].
)I'm just here hoping somebody ports Risc OS Open to x86, Apple managed it after all.Impossible, alas.
RISC OS is a huge pile of undocumented hand-written ARM machine code.
You'd need to rewrite it from scratch, from the ground up, to change architecture.
Even just cleaning up the worst bugs (friends don't let friends allocate memory inside interrupt handlers) looks to be infeasible.
OTOH if you want bug-for-bug compatibility, someone has it working on the BeagleBoard [beagleboard.org]...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29913701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29910093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29954864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29909617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2057200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29910093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29913701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29954864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29919523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29909617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29905811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29907689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29908733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29906683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29904359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2057200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29902875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2057200.29903109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
