Will Pervasive Multithreading Make a Comeback?

exigentsky writes "Having looked at BeOS technology, it is clear that, like NeXTSTEP, it was ahead of its time. Most remarkable to me is the incredible responsiveness of the whole OS. On relatively slow hardware, BeOS could run eight movies simultaneously while still being responsive in all of its GUI controls, and launching programs almost instantaneously. Today, more than ten years after BeOS's introduction, its legendary responsiveness is still unmatched. There is simply no other major OS that has pervasive multithreading from the lowest level up (requiring no programmer tricks). Is it likely, or at least possible, that future versions of Windows or OS X could become pervasively multithreaded without creating an entirely new OS?"

Comments

It makes sense with multi-core cpus

[Thaidog]

OSes like BeOS and Zeta are ahead of their time. With 8 core cpus coming out soon it just makes since with this technology... no programming tricks are needed.

Re:It makes sense with multi-core cpus

[tolan-b]

Haiku is coming along very nicely though, and it's open source.

Re:It makes sense with multi-core cpus

[man_of_mr_e]

There are many factors that define the performance of an OS. One of them is the number of features it provides, and another is the timetable in which said features are delivered. Yet another is legacy compatibility.

BeOS was new. It didn't have to be compatible with anything. But give it 10 years, and 2 Gazillion hacks to let old software continue to work. Give it hundreds or thousands of features, many of which are probably no longer even used by many people, but still have to be there because some small subset needs them. Give it features built upon other features and security patches upon other patches.

Commercial software vendors seldom have the ability to ship software when it's ready, they have to meet timelines. Look at OS X, each new release cycle takes longer and longer because as the OS matures, it takes more and more time to wade through the existing code to change it. It gets slower because more conditionals have to be added to check for compatibility or security issues, or because it needs to do more than it used to.

Linux (the kernel), on the other hand, seems to get better and better, faster and faster, with each new release. There is a reason for that, though. No commercial pressure to release, they can set an arbitrary release date and simply ship whatever features are ready, and do so relatively frequently because they don't have to worry about a large and complete OS release, just the kernel.

Distro vendors, on the other hand, seem to be taking longer and longer between releases (not counting Debian, which has always been glacial), because as the body of software grows, it takes more and more work to maintain it. Distro quality depends largely upon how long they spend stabilizing releases.

Amiga beat them all

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious back in the mid 1980's I used to love putting PC and Mac owners to shame by showing them literally dozens of open, active graphics applications displaying animations, while formatting a floppy disk, and downloading a file online, and still having a normal responsive system with no hic-ups, all in a computer with on 128MB RAM.

Amiga was a multi-tasking, multi-threaded OS, with multiple processors (graphics and I/O were separate co-processors operating on opposite clock cycles from the CPU, and the graphics co-processor could be dynamically loaded with special executable code).

It was so far ahead of it's time that people today still don't believe it existed in the 80's when I tell them about it.

But just because it was better than everything else did not assure it's success. A concept the BeOS fanbois might be familiar with.

Re:Amiga beat them all

[GreggBz]

Hey, I'm all for Amiga's but in the mid Eighties, if you had 128MB of ram and was downloading a file online, you must have been from the future.
What the heck are you talking about?

Just to be a little more correct here, I'm no hardware engineer but will try to be far more accurate.

The Amiga had a great messaging system in it's OS, you could easily pass messages to other windows and programs in intuition. Further, you had all that ARexx stuff, and you could script programs to interact very easily with it. Basically, every program could listen on it's own ARexx socket for commands from other programs. Of course, there was the poor (read, no) memory protection which made things very unstable if you did not know what you were doing. Despite all this cool stuff, the OS was actually the weakest link. It was rushed. I remember reading specs on the original intended, but non-implemented file system, and it was about as robust as a single user file system could possibly get.

You also had preemptive multitasking (not true co-operative) and a fantastic unified memory architecture with a very fast blitter. Another nice thing was
that the kernel was contained on ROM so that it booted quicker then any other platform of it's day, and still faster then most this day. And all those chips played nice
and were synced to an internal clock that ran on NTSC (or PAL) timings. This, of course, meant that interrupts worked seamlessly, and the chipset was handily compatible with video signals from television equipment. That last thing turned into an incredible boon for the entire film and television industry.

The strength of the Amiga was it's bus and it's architecture. They absolutely nailed so many things in it's design, it really was a thing of beauty.

Re:No Maybe Yes

[someone300]

X is being fixed, thankfully (finally). There are a lot of interesting projects, including but not limited to Xegl. Xegl, is the long term goal of the X server and pretty much reduces the X server to a tiny part of the system, basically mediating the input devices, rotation and display management and TCP/over-the-wire GL, if I understand correctly, by using the Embedded GL specifications.