Microsoft math: dual core licensed as one chip

TalkBack 33 of 42:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Again Interpretations will Vary: Not everyone will agree with me although the main issues seem clear. Again it comes down
to how much extra performance\capability is provided either by a chip maker or an app developer.

Someone above ( aka "Moot point" ) made the point that dual core is still being developed so it is easy for Microsoft to deliver a current policy.
At the moment they have no other way to go
i.e. they don't want to affect their cash flow adversely by making statements on multi core policy now which could be interpreted negatively
by the market. When multi core eventually comes in there could be a change of policy from MS
but they want a smooth transition and people to view the upcoming technology positively.

If people are told now they may have to pay a license fee per core ( then things start to look prohibitively costly for everyone ) they may view the technology negatively before it is introduced.
It could even affect MSes cash flow now
( more Linux converts ?) but if they easy on over to multi core then they can do the old jack up over time.

I think it's a fair policy ( pay per copy\processor single\multi or whatever)
and MS aren't stupid enough to change straight after multi core comes in. They will do it over a number of years after and slowly transition up
a smooth gradient.

If as you say the new AMD/Intel muti core hardware is controlled totally by the chip logic
( transparent to both OS and apps ) then NO I don't think app developers\vendors have any right to charge more for their apps which run on multi core systems ( unless they are adding extra software functionality to an OS/NOS or app which
is both irrelevant to how the multi core stuff works [could be relevant though] and which gives the customer a significant
extra something [ performance or whatever])
just because their software can run on multicore.

There is another issue here though. If we were dealing with an old OS/NOS version or app ported from an old single core system to new multicore hardware then if it requires a significant investment\effort to do so ( we are assuming multi core stuff will be totally transparent to the software but for future systems this may not
be the case - so they either add in extra control software for OS/NOS and/or apps or not ) then they can claim they are providing a NEW product and charge accordingly. If the effort was relatively trivial ( say recompiling, linking etc for the new native instruction set ) then we may claim chargeing extra is not fair.

BUT keep in mind that porting of OS/NOS software and apps is generally far from a trivial process and usually requires significant investment of time, money and labour. Usually there are many many changes to make and many unforseen problems and bugs to fix ( even in old tried and tested software ). If a new OS/NOS version or app is developed specifically for new multi core hardware
then the developers can claim this is the NEW
MULTICORE VERSION and charge more.

How multicore is implemented by AMD and Intel will
impact how much extra effort software developers
have to make to port old software and to build new software for the new hardware. If they invest heavily to do all that then they will seek to maximise their ROI.

New chip architectures are becoming very complex
and in order to make really well informed determinations on how new multicore implementations will impact hardware and software
priceing\licenseing people need a comprehensive knowledge of the low level specifics of each chip architecture. This will affect ( as you indicated ) how much interaction ( if any ) there is between OS/NOS and/or apps and the multicore chip hardware.

I will leave the lower level considerations to the
real experts out there. I am glad you asked your questions because you have highlighted the fact that it isn't as cut and dried as I might have indicated above.

So hardware and software developers can still
go in more than one direction on all of this.
Look out for many variations on multi core tech in future. Some priceing and licenseing deals will be better than others. Again I think we will need some good benchmarks and standards so we can quantify any relative gains in functionality, capability, performance and utility.

Some industry OEMs, vendors have always wanted to
stick a NEW PRODUCT sticker on old product and
hit people for another 20 to 50%. That's the nature of the beast with markets like IT etc..
It helps to be as well informed as possible and to
use a little common sense and analysis when making purchasing decisions ( take your time and think things through first).

I don't know that much about the PowerG5 architecture. I do know that multiple IPUs
( execution units ) and FPUs as defined by Intel is part of their SuperScalar processor technology
which I think they 1st introduced in the Pentium 1. SuperScalar architecture uses pipelining
i.e. multiple instruction queues\paths which keep
multiple IPUs busy working on instructions in parrallel ( and they add stuff like out of order execution, predictive branching and other fancy stuff to optimise performance). Meanwhile the
Prefetch Unit is busy keeping the IPU pipes full.

Maybe the PowerG5 uses similar superscalar stuff
( which is CISC or RISC ??? can't remember as designs change both approaches come in and out of favour ). But Hey multi core is the way to go
( to keep power draw and heat down and performance up). With the new 90nm fab tech
they are using they may not be able to shrink stuff smaller ( the limits of our current lithographic tech for substrate fab ) because we are near the physical limitations of the materials we are working with right now.

BUT the future will yeild new solutions and whole new approaches\technologies. It will be interesting to see which way it all goes.

My teeth are in bad shape ( dentist next week )
and I have no extra enamel to spare.
But it's OK as I don't come here to chew
on anyone.

Do you remember Bob Dylans' Slow Train Coming Album ? It's a fact. We all do have to "Serve Somebody" whether we like it or not.

There are many kings out there. I was just wondering which one was relevant here ?
( no obligation to answer, just interested ).

Can't wait to see what they can achieve with the new multi core tech.

Brian Cooley has a refreshing approach to IT.

I like his quote

"Almost everything electronic is a damned liar !"

and in many cases this is a fact
( but not in all cases ).

?8O)}; Posted by: webgecko Posted on: 10/20/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use