On TV.com: LADY GAGA Photos
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 12 of 22:
Next »
« Previous
Jeez
>If only we could get MS to write
>an OS that REALLY uses
>multiple processors the way they
>were intended we would see one
>CPU core doing the critical apps
>fast while the other core(s) did
>the background system tasks and
>anti-malware.

It already does this, why don?t you purchase a multi-core machine yourself and find out before saying otherwise.

>Just because multiprocessor
>machines have been around doesn't
>mean they have been fully utilized.
>Without tools to write code
>to take advantage of the extra
>CPUs there isn't going to be much
>done with the extra hardware.

And just what sort of super go faster tool to you think is required for such a task? Have you ever heard of the phrase 'multithreaded'? MS software has been multithreaded for ages (as in over a decade). While multithreading does add a small performance gain to a single processor system you really don't realize the benefits until you use a multi-core system. Again, purchase a multi-core machine stating that such support doesn't exist.

>Where are the machines that
>have 1 Terabyte of RAM? Since
>MS doesn't support it, it isn't
>needed? Most apps would be hard
>pressed to use a 10GHz CPU and
>the OS would have to juggle
>multiple tasks. The support chips
>probably couldn't keep up with
the swapping of data to keep the
>CPU at full speed.

Actually, it isn't a matter of MS supporting the use of 1 Terabyte of RAM, it's the Intel Pentium class of processor that doesn?t support it. If the Pentium supported 1 Terabyte of RAM then MS would also.

Most apps would have no problem using a 10 GHz core and juggle multiple tasks, after all it would be running FASTER! The support chips can't keep up with the current CPU speeds so it wouldn't be any different at a high clock speed.
Posted by: balsover   Posted on: 07/28/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

I didn't realize that AMD accomplished such an impossible task.... happy  michael_t | 07/27/06
LOL.. At least you've conceded Intel kicked AMD's @ss  Prognosticator | 07/27/06
Unlike U, I evaluate technology on its merits and not based on WHOSE is it.  michael_t | 07/28/06
Intel has been updating the Pentium over time  Mr_Dave | 07/28/06
mr dave, Intel copied the PowerPC datapath in their  michael_t | 07/28/06
What's the big deal  john@... | 09/18/06
Think of the Tool Implications  mighetto | 07/27/06
Just how do you think Vista is being reworked for multicore?  balsover | 07/28/06
Windows has supported multi-processor and  ShadeTree | 07/28/06
class action lawsuit?  joemartn | 07/27/06
Why any lawsuit? Use what you have.  Mr_Dave | 07/28/06
Jeez  balsover | 07/28/06
Perhaps you should do a little research?  balsover | 07/28/06
Not to mention the heat!  mobrien_12@... | 07/28/06
Market niches  Anton Philidor | 07/28/06
And of course that's because  Michael Kelly | 07/28/06
not official, but true  shryko | 07/28/06
Corp machines  mobrien_12@... | 07/28/06
Speed differences are often not significant.  Anton Philidor | 07/28/06
This is about the new architecture  MIS Master | 07/28/06
NO big deal at all.... Intel at last implemented their  michael_t | 07/28/06
Competition IS good!  Reverend MacFellow | 07/28/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here