On TechRepublic: Why Linux will triumph over Windows
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 13 of 36:
Next »
« Previous
It Comes down
to the OS in those cases I think. A lot of stuff is serial, and there is no real way around it. So then it comes down to the OS being able to properly send the threads to the correct CPU. If you have 4 different serial apps running, the OS should move each one to its own core if needed. I know this is done to an extent now with some OS's, some doing it better than others, but it should be something the OS makers put ore time into.

But what the software makers can do is make each of those serial task into their own thread. This would allow a piece of software to still be multi threaded. Maybe not to the extent that would be fastest to the user, but every little bit helps.

Hard drives have gotten a lot faster in the last 2 years, and in the next 5 years they should make a pretty big leap forward (assuming solid state drives can get into a price range that competes with platter based HD's). But a lot of types of data crunching don't require heavy HD access. Take games for instance, very very few games are multi threaded at this point in time. But its something that game developers should be really looking into. Being able to offload each of the big task (game engine, graphics, sound) onto a different core could show a huge speed improvement.
Posted by: Stuka   Posted on: 05/25/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

The size of software is following  bjbrock | 05/25/07
Curious, what has this to do  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
It's why software is not  bjbrock | 05/25/07
Well, obviously the "power"  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
The second paragraph  bjbrock | 05/25/07
That would be Parkinson's Law  John L. Ries | 05/25/07
Bingo  Jack-Booted EULA | 05/28/07
Interesting... Fear of patents stiffling software performance innovation?  Basic Logic | 05/26/07
perhaps  CobraA1 | 05/27/07
You're not a programmer, are you? happy  wolf_z | 05/26/07
There is some truth to this  John L. Ries | 05/26/07
Not that easy to do really.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
It Comes down  Stuka | 05/25/07
You write to what's available  John Zern | 05/25/07
Hypocrisy from Intel  Robert.Novak@... | 05/25/07
Only cheap  Stuka | 05/25/07
Windows and Linux run on the same Intel (or AMD) hardware.  HypnoToad72 | 05/25/07
I think  Suicida| | 05/25/07
This is where Linux outshines Windows.  linux for me | 05/26/07
You're absolutely right HypnoToad72  GeiselS@... | 05/27/07
Contrasting hardware and software  kmatzen@... | 05/25/07
And this is news, or a law?! Sounds more like forgotten common sense.  HypnoToad72 | 05/25/07
Back in the days . . .  Ken_z | 05/26/07
Anyone Remember the AMIGA ?  GeiselS@... | 05/26/07
Yes, I remember how slow they were.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/26/07
You obviously didn't own one  GeiselS@... | 05/27/07
As usual  wgraue | 06/03/07
At least part of the problem is...  Henry Miller | 05/27/07
Why?  in-DUH-vidual | 05/27/07
No Moore's Law?  Grayson Peddie | 05/27/07
Don't know  in-DUH-vidual | 05/28/07
The thing about Moore's Law...  Wolfie2K3 | 05/29/07
Exotic tasks  in-DUH-vidual | 05/30/07
Microsoft Windows 2008  mighetto | 05/28/07
back in '90 i hada chance to write a PPprogram in Fortran for a connection  wessonjoe | 05/29/07
All is about optimization  PhilippeV | 06/01/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here