Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 To Be 256-Core Aware
unassimilatible writes "As new features of Windows 7 continue to trickle out, ZDNet is now reporting that it will scale to 256 processors. While one has to wonder, like with Vista, how many of the teased features will actually make it into the final OS, I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody." This Mark Russinovich interview has some technical details (Silverlight required).
RTFA my ass!
Is this like when 640k was enough for everyone? Who would need more ram?
``I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody''
No. Why would that be enough? I can think of many scenarios where more cores would be useful, and computers with more cores have already been built.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Unless you want to run the new interface, oh and antivirus, at the same time.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You are wanting to run the new Microsoft Office. Then you will have underpowered machine, but just wait for Windows 8.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
What does it even mean that it "scales to 256 cores", though? I'd interpret it to say that it has support for 256-processor SMP scheduling, but in that case, my reaction would have to be "not until now?". Seriously, does Windows Datacenter Edition (oh, the oxymoron that it is) not support that many CPUs already? Or does it mean that the standard edition of Windows 7 will just be licensed to be able to use 256 CPUs?
Also, how many CPUs does Linux support these days? Last I read about it a couple of years ago, it supported 1024 processors.
The most recent mainline Linux release has integrated mature patches for 4096 core scalability, that have been developed by high performance computing corporations and tested in the field for years. Previous versions were rated for "only" 1024 cores. That still makes 256 look like a Gameboy.
While the operating system might be able to support his many cores, many applications fail to do so. The PS3 is a good example of the hurdles in place to developing applications that truly can take advantage of the multiple cores. The problem is not to do with the hardware, but with the tools and programming methodologies we all know. While many programmers have touched on multi-threading how many truly master it?
In many ways it is better to write a single threaded application, than a badly threaded one. The point is that if threads spend too much time sharing resources and coordinating their use then the overhead sometimes outweighs the advantages. You can't apply threading to all solutions and you if something is going to be long running, then it is often better to separate the resources and then resync them at the end of the task. For me its like building a house: as long as each contractor is working on something independent then it works well, but as soon as they are involved in trying to work in the same area then you spend more time trying to manage things so that they don't get in each other's way.
What we need are better tools, better understanding of threads and an acceptance that a single application can't always take advantage of threads effectively.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You missed THE most obligatory comment:
256 cores should be enough for anybody!