Slashdot Mirror
Next Windows To Get Multicore Redesign
eldavojohn writes "A Microsoft executive announced that the next Windows will be fundamentally redesigned to handle the numerous cores of present and future processors. The article notes that the NT technology underneath Vista has been able to take advantage of multiple processors since 1993, and can now handle 32 or 64 cores. And since Microsoft completely rewrote the 20-year-old GDI/GDI+ model for Vista, what more can (or should) they parallelize? It will be interesting to see how Microsoft tackles the race conditions and deadlocks that come with pervasively multithreaded software and in the past complicated attempts (like that of BeOS) to utilize multiple CPUs. Do you think it's it a smart move to further complicate an operating system to take advantage of multiple cores, or should Microsoft stick to its knitting while applications take advantage of (possibly) more resources?"
Didn't they only just fundamentally rewrite Windows Vista?
Deleted
They're going to aren't they? Windows Vista '09 Multicore Edition, only valid for up to 16 cores, Windows Vista '09 Multicore Extreme Edition, 16-24 cores...
And so it goes.
I can't wait - an OS designed through-and-through for multiple cores, and it's only six or more years away!
I have been waiting for something like this! Finally, an operating system and company that "just get it!" This redesign will restructure the world of computing just as WinFS and Monad di... oh, never mind...
And just to get a few jokes out of the way:
Finally! Something that will run Vista!
-and-
Does it come bundled with Duke Nukem Forever?
Now we all will have buy to 8core machines with 16G memory as a minimum model, based on what just happened with Vista.
How is that helping their customers? Oh yeah, DELL is their customer, not us.
You heard it here first.
There are three issues in multi-processor programming.
(1) OS and language support in the form of threading models
(2) OS and language support in the form of scheduling algorithms
(2) Application support in the form of using those threading models to develop program components that can run concurrently.
Let Microsoft focus on #1 and #2, and application developers focus on #3. The OS should not, IMHO, try to take a program that is not written to take advantage of multiple processors, and run it in a concurrent environment. That's just asking for trouble!
Advanced threading models that allow application developers better control over how their threads are executed, and scheduling algorithms that distribute threads across the multiple cores and processors, will pave the way for application developers to write applications that can truly benefit from a multi-core environment.
As an application developer, one of the biggest problems I've encountered in developing multi-threaded applications is the ability to easily control what can run concurrently, and what can't. I have almost no ability to tell the operating system which threads I want to run concurrently, and which I want it to time-share.
Let Microsoft, and language developers, focus on the first two tasks. Make the tools available to application developers, and let application developers take advantage of those tools.
sticking in a DVD still hang Explorer for the 5-10 seconds it takes to spin up and read the TOC?
/frank
How many years has Windows had this obvious, annoying flaw?
And the worms ate into his brain.
Seems to me that the best way to do multicore code would be to create a highly modular design, which could result in less complicated code if done right.
Surely some individual modules may become more complicated, but the system as a whole would probably end up a lot cleaner.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
After years of wait, Minesweeper gets the multi-core treatment! Now I won't have to suffer those lousy frame rates.
... that read "parallelize" as "paralyze"
Why bother talking about multi core supporting operating systems when we still haven't embraced 64-bit technology yet. Why bother pushing for a new technology when the current 'new' technology hasn't even been implemented yet. IMHO, Microsoft should have made Vista 64-bit only and kept XP alive for the 32-bit people who don't want to migrate. This would force people to write 64-bit drivers and software in order to be on 'average Joe's' new PC. Instead, they've done what they've been doing for the past 30 years, compromising due to lack of adaptation.
Now I'm no supporter of Microsoft. I personally hate them. But you have to see where I'm coming from.
I recently built a new PC for my parents. It was a simple box with a Sempron 3000, 1gb DDR, 80Gb HDD, etc. It was all 64-bit compatible so I though Vista Home Premium 64-bit would be the best way to go. Their scanner isn't supported, their antivirus isn't supported, and the devices and software they use that DO work on Vista, are all running in 32-bit mode because there is no equivalent for 64-bit.
Please lets implement the great technology we have before concentrating on the future.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
NT has always been a multiprocessor OS.
The big problem with NT is its "Message Passing" architecture, whereby
various components of the OS talk to each other by putting messages on queues
(In the *nux model you just call the function you need.)
The weakness of the architecture is that the component handling any one
message queue is automatically single threaded and tied to a single processor.
Which is OK for 2 or four processor systems but in 16 or 34 processor
systems 12 or 30 of your processors are wasted.
However I expect the idea of any resources being available to the application
is an anathema to Redmond so they will fix this problem to ensure that VISTA
keeps its design goal to consume 90% of available resources.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
Actually I've never seen them on a Linux platform. Zombies are not a problem though. See here for example.
What I've seen that is a problem are processes in "D" state (ininterruptible sleep waiting for the end of an I/O IIRC), usually happening with bad drivers / bad hardware.
But contrary to the windows platform, it never clutters your desktop, as you can "xkill" X ressources even if the program still uses ressources in the background.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
This is all very nice they are doing this, but the need is now. Not just for windows, but all the apps have to become multi-core aware. Right now having a dual or quad core for most apps is like having a care with an extra engine or two in the trunk not connected to any drivelines. CPUs have hit a wall in terms of speed because of heat, so the manufacturers are giving us mulit-core. Very nice, but consumer-level apps that use them would be nice. Some professional apps are multi-core aware, but at the consumer level...
And preferably this year, not 2009
It seems that they've already begun to develop services akin to the message passing systems in Erlang and Mozart-Oz. Given that those message passing systems are how those languages avoid the vast bulk of problems described, it seems likely that their attempts to prevent these problems are in fact well underway.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
There's an option: "Launch folder windows in separate processes".
See if you can find it...
No sig today...
"just using MS software only uses 1 core by default" Really depends on which software you're using. A lot of applications like Word, Excel, etc don't usually do process-intensive tasks and the act of spreading the work over multiple threads would actually decrease performance (there is overhead for each thread, context switches, etc). Those apps are more often IO-bound... either waiting for user IO or disk IO. However, if you're using software like SQL Server which performs tasks that do benefit from multiple concurrent threads, it does use multiple cores out of the box. (Yes, it's actually just using multiple threads out of the box, but Windows tosses those to multiple cores... trying not to be too pedantic here) Also if you're manually setting the affinity of processes, you're probably inadvertently decreasing your performance. Windows will spread processing across multiple cores by default (not only using 1 core like you say). When you specifically set the affinity, you're not really moving the process to a different core so much as saying "don't use this core even if it's not being used by anything else." Multi-threading with IO intensive applications should make use of IO completion ports in Windows. That will give you much better perf than trying to manually control which core you explicitly want a thread running on. Keep in mind that IO is orders of magnitude slower than processing, and more often than not that's now the bottleneck in systems. Check out http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/info rmation/IoCompletionPorts.mspx/ for more info. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications out there (both from MS and other vendors) that do multi-threading poorly. Hopefully if MS re-writes some of the Windows infrastructure to make multi-threading easier for applications we'll see better apps that more properly take advantage of the hardware that's out there.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
Affordable processing power, for home users, isn't going to come from faster mhz as much as from multiple cores, so naturally new software will need to take advantage of this new hardware to be competitive.
Any OS that doesn't provide support may find itself outdistanced from an OS that does. Of course, if an OS doesn't have a very large game base to begin with, then they won't have much to lose either.
Next announcement will come about 6 months before the release date:
This feature will not be included in the upcoming release of Windows.
Five years from now Windows will support multiple cores. Which is what OS X is doing on my MacBook Pro RIGHT NOW.
I believe the largest SMP system that OSX has ever been run on is 8 cores. Windows has run on a 64 CPU system and Linux on a 1024 CPU system.
So I'm kind of struggling to understand how OSX is superior in this regard. I know there must be a technical explanation, because it's not like Mac owners to post single lines of obvious bullshit in an attempt to advocate their systems while actually just annoying the fuck out of everyone.
You put $4k down for a pc to run Microsoft desktop software. You should change your nick to GullableTwat23
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
the next windows to be codenamed "Linux"
Power to the Penguin!
Mac OS X traces its roots to the Mach micro kernel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel and BSD flavors of Unix. (Yes, I know that OS X has diverged substantially from Mach now).
/ 4
Like most operating systems, Mac OS X has bottlenecks by design that tend to limit concurrent thread execution within the kernel. There is an excellent article at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars
Only one thread can use a bottlenecked resource at a time. When multiple threads (application threads or kernel threads) need simultaneous access to a resource, all but one thread must wait. Threads that could theoretically run concurrently on multiple cores end up running sequentially because all but one thread are waiting to access the resource. Apple has made the locking (concurrency protection) within the kernel finer and finer grained with each release of Mac OS X. In Mac OS X 10.4, Tiger, the bottlenecks are very fine grained, and in practice the system is very efficient allowing concurrent execution on multiple cores.
That being said, Mac OS X is far from perfect or optimal. There is lots of room for improvement, and Apple seems to be following the path of continual evolution rather than revolution at this point. Remember that for the last six years or so, every Mac OS X update/release has run faster than previous versions.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Say what?
"Multicore" is essentially SMP (multiprocessor) but all on one physical chip rather than several. Windows has supported that ever since the days of NT 4, but its architecture is more suited to 2 or 4 cores rather than 16 or 24.
Your comment is only valid for Windows '9x.
Dual core alone makes a difference for the average user .... yes web browsing is single threaded but you aren't. If they are doing anything CPU intensive (media encoding/ITunes ... what have you :) it can render a single core system unresponsive where with a dual core system you don't even really notice.
Personally I have a quad core setup (2 opteron 265's) and it's routinely up over 50% (not doing media encoding).
I don't know which version of Windows you're running (3.1 perhaps), but Vista (and previous versions of the NT kernel) have been truly preemptive from day one and you can kill user level processes from task manager and stop and restart services without bringing the system down. I literally can't remember an application making any of my Windows systems come down.
I think the interesting thing here is the "design center" for OS is changing dramatically, in the past 99% of Windows desktops were uniprocessor and I dare say that they made design choice around that. Now we are moving to a world where 2- and 4-way desktops are common and the number of cores is only going to increase over time. That means you may well start to look at some fundamentally different ways of doing things, perhaps dedicating cores to specific tasks within the OS, for example a core might be dedicated to handling the IP stack while another might handle GDI requests. I'm not saying that this is what will happen, just that widespread use of multi-CPU systems may change the tradeoffs in OS design.
In an age when Intel and IBM are making statements about future 80-core processors or massive parallelism, and when multicore processors (or at least dual-CPU systems) are becoming commonplace, how can a statement from Microsoft to the effect that they're going to take advantage of multiple cores be anything other than a "me too!" piece of fluff?
Nothing specific is said, just the vague "we're going to be doing good stuff to make use of the things we have when we're done" sort of message.
What's next? "Memory is important, so we're going to make really good use of it?" or "Hard drives are getting bigger all the time, so we're going to do something with that extra space. Not sure yet, but it'll be really good and probably involve the overuse of the word 'rich' by senior execs."
I'm looking forward to *delivery* and ignoring vague promises.
Err,
No.
Every NT based OS from Microsoft has had IE and Windows explorer as two completely separate processes so killing one won't affect the other.
I can have a 100 IE windows open, kill explorer.exe and my IE windows won't be affected one bit.
Even if I enter a URL in a Windows Explorer window, it launches my default browser to that URL.
So now windows will clog ALL of my processors? It's already bad when it clogs just one.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
There is nothing wrong with using a proven design from another product in a new product. OpenOffice.org has stolen from MS-Office, Firefox has stolen from Opera, Thunderbird has stolen from Outlook Express, Linux has stolen from UNIX, the GIMP has stolen from Photoshop, Evolution has stolen from Outlook, and so on, and so forth...
Not every single piece of software needs to be 100% unique and original. Taking an old design and improving it is a very valid method of designing something new. <obligatory_car_analogy>Heck, every single car today is a total rippoff of the Ford Model T</obligatory_car_analogy>
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I think you'd find that there are other areas where Linux is well ahead of Windows, beyond filesystem support and research. The following are just the ones right off the top of my head:
I'm sure there'll be more to add to this list. There are good comparisons around.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Microsoft Research has an OS named Singularity, designed to leverage many CPUs. You can bet that some of their research will go into the next Windows... I saw a presentation by the developers, and they firmly believe that none of the current generation operating systems are going to be able to effectively use i.e. thousands of processors.
One of the key improvements is an order of magnitude increase over conventional Windows and Linux in the speed of creating threads.
They also talked about the need for new programming paradigms, and I have a feeling that these are just as important if not more so than the shape of the next-gen OS. It was funny to hear guys from Microsoft --- who brought us Visual Basic --- saying that maybe functional programming was going to be the next wave.
Wow, Vista has NT technology! Will this new OS system support LCD displays and NIC cards too?
(Excuse me, I need to go put my PIN number in an ATM machine.)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Not every single piece of software needs to be 100% unique and original.
Indeed no piece of software can be 100% original. Else we get into silly situations. Imagine if every new software development project couldnt use, say, drop down menus cause they didnt invent them.
No one, because it's Glenda, the Plan 9 Bunny. And it's an official attribution.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
FX!32 was for running applications, not the operating system. Think of it like rosetta for Mac OS X Intel.
NT was actually built from the ground up to be portable cross-platform (in fact, the dev platform was the Intel i860 an then the MIPS R4000, both RISC chips). Everything runs on top of a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that takes care of the differences between various platforms.
NT was a very elegant operating system, which isn't surprising seeing as it was the brain-child of Dave Cutler famous for VMS.
I am NaN