Full Multi-core Power May Require Windows Rework

[Guest]

I still think multi threading is the way to go, of course with more modern scheduling algos. The major disadvantage to the above idea is that if you dedicate a core to an application, while that may prove to be good for CPU intensive apps, what abour light apps? that dont fully hog your CPU? what about E-mail and browsers, which even the Pentium 4 could run? does it justify to hand then a core? and what about the other apps waiting? they would not get a bit of CPU so they would not even start processing, where as the current mechanism allows for forground, background processing along with scalibility.

 

[largoson]

This could be a good thing. For one, the master cpu only runs the operations and no programs so there is no waylaying of the master cpu. Other cpus are given to apps as they need them, probram crashes cust that core can be reinitialized not crashing the system. Multible cores can be given to programs that can handle multicore and need the horsepower. Powerusage can re reduced by idleing (or throttling back) cpu's that do not need the full power of the cpu's running at that time. I think the big problem with this is memory management between all these cores. Programs doing direct memory access if not well behaved would cause massive problems (crashes).
Largo

 

[matt87_50]

Grand Central Dispatch is a good example I suppose. the whole Idea of each app creating it's own thread pool, one thread for each core is soo stupid! what happens when you have more than one program doing this??? you need one central thing that does this in the OS. moreover, 'threads' was created as an idea of how to do multiple different things at once! not how to do one thing across multiple processors at the same time! as it turns out, they can be used for that, but thats silly, most apps don't need the ability to do multiple different things at once, they just want to get one serial chain of work done as fast as possible. there should be an OS level "work manager" like GCD is advertised to be. apps just submit modular 'thread safe' tasks and then waits for them to finish.

 

[Regulas]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]that`s why benchmarks made cross platform between linux and windows on certain aplications look alike ? Linux is great for some stuff but still try to keep the enthusiasm for yourself.[/citation]
Not going to happen MS troll

 

[nezzymighty]

Love that Dell advertisement... I'm glad it found it's way into this article as well...

 

[Guest]

*Cough* Grand Central Dispatch....

 

[reddragon72]

We all know that we are waiting on other parts of the PC not just the CPU, so the OS handling things better doesn't mean a faster PC, just a more responsive one when you click, but you'll still have to wait for the data to be retrieved, possessed, stored, then displayed. So a multi-core OS is useless if everything is hitting the hard drive and graphics card and tying up the bus that runs it all. Useless... useless I say!

 

[bildo123]

[citation][nom]cscott_it[/nom]It's not a really myth, persay, it's the end user. My thoughts are, if you improperly configure your router and your router can get a virus (which is in the ram naturally, so resetting it removes it) then your linux distro can get a virus if you improperly configure it, have poor surfing habits, etc.Everyone thinks that their solution is the best for everything, who knows it may be the best for everything THEY do, but it's not the best for everyone. This is true of any OS.[/citation]

Kind of wish I knew what was being said here, I found intro to programming interesting, but not my cup of tea.

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]"but do we have the software chops to handle all that power?" Yeah, it's called Linux.[/citation]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]Well I came back for a look and saw the little MS trolls had been here and flagged all the positive Linux posts. They probably get Crapbox 360 points for doing it.[/citation]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]Not going to happen MS troll[/citation]

Then your wondering why your getting thumbs down.......

It is unnecessary response. It is off topic and there no constructive criticism of how, why, ect, linux "is better then windows" / "can do what windows cant".

Now, what make linux and windows different in terms of harnessing multi core cpu power? I have be using ubuntu, windows xp, vista, and 7 they practically all have the same ability of harnessing multi core cpu's (with minor different between each OS). So linux/windows doesn't have any advantages over one another in that catagory. What they do win in is the fact that the dont require as much system resourses (like ram, cpu speed, hdd, ect) to run unlike windows.

Now for you saying that all the Positive linux comments is getting marked down...... all im seeing getting marked down out of linux comments is, "Yeah, it's called Linux" or "Linux FTW". How is that really positive?

Now lets stay on topic.

 

[dkcrogue]

Conventional Hard drives are definatly the bottleneck in todays hardware. SSDs seem to solve the problem of waiting, but most of the time even the SSDs are the bottlekneck with the screaming fast CPUs of today. Whack in a PCI-e RAID card and problem solved.