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).
While one has to wonder, like with Vista, how many of the teased features will actually make it into the final OS
If you're going by their track record, it's an easy answer: None.
My browser already supports audio, video, vector graphics and a scripting language.
I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody.
I just put the finishing touches on my 257 core machine, you insensitive clod!
Suggestion for new /. poll. Who has installed Silverlight? (Silverlight required)
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.
It must be really hard for Microsoft to compete in the HPC space. I almost feel bad for them. Almost.
Sam ty sig.
.... testing the waters via marketing that which may or not come into some form of existence.
They use the same tactic as well, to help suppress any interest a competitor might be getting with some technology by claiming they are doing the same, where often enough they kill teh support teh competitor was getting while never producing that which they claimed they were doing.
So take this current claim in such a light and you'll know "believe it when you know you have it and are using it, not even a split second before".
I won't believe a thing Microsoft says about Windows 7 until I see it. Microsoft is like a political candidate running for office. It makes a ton of promises you know it'll never keep.
How will Vista (and, indeed, Linux) manage memory across so many cores? The machine can't be SMP, because you can't maintain data cache coherence across more than about eight cores. So it has to have a completely new memory model. I wonder how this can be achieved without major changes to the kernel?
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
No... No he didn't.
Sigh, first off, it was 640kb of ram, and second off it's not even his quote. And additionally I'm not sure who really said it, but it wasn't Gates.
The 640kb wasn't meant in the long term it was meant at that point, a time when they were talking about how to divy up the limited ram. It was the sensible way to proceed, it's just that drivers and such didn't get loaded into the rest of the ram causing huge headaches for gaming.
Even at that point it was asinine to suggest that ram wouldn't become more common in machines. I think at that point they'd already seen ram increase by a few thousand percentage points easy if not more.
No Silverlight, no Moonlight, it's bad enough that I've got to deal with Microsoft's broken security zones at work, I'm not going to start running son-of-ActiveX at home.
Oh for fuck's sake, it's a joke. Why does every second post here have to prove that its poster is humour-impaired?
Can you imagine a beowolf cluster of those?
Neither can I.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
If you look more closely (just below the description section) there are download links for:
* iPod (MP4)
* MP3
* PSP (MP4)
* WMA
* WMV
* WMV (High)
* Zune
256 cores means that it can be stored in a 16-byte flag
Er... there are 128 bits in 16 bytes. HTH.
Except the architecture they chose was pretty much limited to 640, so i don't buy your argument.
Sure, soon afterwards ways around it was found, and eventually broken completely but it was a HARD limit at one point and i don't give Bill credit for seeing beyond his nose due to his 'self importance' attitude, which has burnt him more then once ( but with billions in the bank, its easy to buy your way out of a mistake ).
It was also marketing spin against the competing motorola chips ( and systems ) which could address more. "you really don't need that extra headroom, stick with microsoft'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Supposedly it's an urban legend that he even said that, because no one on the internet can actually source the quote. And if the internet can't find it, then it probably doesn't exist. To sate those who want at least something, however, here is a relevant quote from 1989:
"I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem."
...and you'll need a license for every core.
Obviously, there will be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256 versions. Features vary. Standard upgrade rules on the first four relative to Vista, then they can premium price the last five as "Corporate", "Super-Corporate", "Hyper-Corporate", "Gold" and "Platinum". Should be simple enough.
I've read that it was an IBM engineer who said it. Could be another urban legend.
Anyway, Gates denied saying it: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484 (Oldest link - it's from 1997 - that I could find.)
QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"
ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.
"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."
Because people who get the joke are going to laugh and move on. Only people who don't get the joke, or who want to make a lame follow-on joke, are going to hit the submit button. (Or people who are annoyed by the previous groups.)
Self-selection bias explains a lot about the stuff you find on the Internet.
Based on the announcements on Windows 7 and the reviews I thought too that they had improved the performance of Windows 7 vs. Vista. Then I found an article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols that might explain the "glowing" reviews at Microsoft's PDC. It seems that Microsoft may have permanently "loaned" $2,000 laptops with 2.4GHz Intel dual cores + 3GB ram to the "reviewers" to review Windows 7. If so, that's not the first time they tried that stunt (Vista was the first that I recall). So in the answer to the question, "Can a leopard change its spots?" if the above is correct then the answer in Microsoft's case seems to be "No." Here's the url: http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsoft_bribes_again
Erm, they also gave out disks, and some have installed it on lower hardware. See here where they install it on a Celeron lappy. Microsoft demonstrated it running on a netbook. I can't remember where, but I recall reading a review of Windows 7 where they installed it on a laptop with 1 gig of ram, and said it ran as smooth as XP on the machine.
Not to mention, giving out a laptop with known devices and hardware for a pre-beta built isn't exactly out of the ordinary. That way Microsoft can ensure that all the devices and drivers on that laptop are actually supported (remember: PRE-BETA). Not to mention the specs for those computers aren't exactly out of the ordinary now, and will be either standard or 'underpowered' two years from now when Windows 7 will be released.
But your point is moot anyway, since they've already given out installer discs, and people have installed it on a variety of hardware and still were impressed with the performance.
You tell me that making OSes that crash every few hours and have to reboot all the time is part of a "mature industry"?
This is obviously your own personal problem for downloading malware or whatever. Just because you break your operating systems doesn't mean they aren't mature. My last reboot was several months ago (not due to a crash -- last crash was probably a year ago), and the last time I used Windows (2003) I actually found XP quite stable and not in need of any regular rebooting (except for security updates).
This space intentionally left blank
There is a problem with your argument. You are thinking in terms of a monolithic operating system. They could keep everything on the installation disks and only install the parts that are desired (like Linux is). If you later on needed another service you could put in in with what is on the installation disk.
Lets see why Vista was a train wreck: A) It ran pathetically slow B) It renamed things for no apparent reasons and C) It had too much DRM and other crap. I think that anyone could have told you that it wouldn't go over too well. It wasn't because of things developed that "wouldn't go over well in the marketplace" it was the idiot Ballmer trying to push his agenda that is killing MS over developing decent software.
a) What are you running it on? A P-133? If you'll remember, XP was pretty damned slow when it first came out. Slower, in fact, than Vista (comparatively speaking)
b) Like what? Are you talking about the "My Documents" to "Documents" transition? Like how XP moved your docs folder from C:\My Documents to %user%\ ?
c) Did you really expect Microsoft to not include DRM in Vista? They're in a pretty hard place; they have to bow to multiple governments demands as to what they can and cannot include in their OS. Not only that, but they'd get their arses sued off by the media companies, who would then release their own DRM stuff that would only bog Windows down even more.
Funnily enough, it's only Microsoft that's at the mercy of these organisations... I don't see Apple getting yelled at for including iChat, iMovie, iLife, Quicktime, GarageBand and iTunes with their OS. I also don't see nearly as many users bitching about the actual restrictive DRM in their OS as there are about the unintrusive (WGA notwithstanding) DRM in Vista.
Now, there's MS bashing, and there's MS bashing. I am personally sick of seeing "waaa Vista sucks" posts all over the internet. Did you know that you pay more per chip in a bag of potato chips than you do per megabyte of RAM these days?
Think about that. Suck it up and buy some more RAM and enjoy Vista the way it was supposed to be used - XP ran like shit on less than 64MB of RAM, so why is Vista bashed for having the same comparative requirements?