[sarcasm]I would feel a whole lot better if all the people of the world could access our government systems and do whatever the hell they could possibly want to with those systems[/sarcasm].
Yes, indeed, big brother is watching over who uses their systems, how they use it, and for what purpose and intent. Just like if someone were to come over to your house and use YOUR system, you'd feel better knowing the purpose of the use. "No, sir, that was certainly not MY kiddie porn on MY computer..."
I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types (I'm picking on Flash) that could potentially be exploited far more than an extension that Microsoft produced because they realize that there is a huge established base of Firefox users on their Windows operating system.
I think this one is a win for the Firefox community in the sense that instead of being greeted with "your browser ain't IE, yo" that they are using the fundamental openness of Firefox to be able to reach users who, like me, think IE is the best waste of disk space on my Windows machines. Let Microsoft continue to develop for Firefox and realize how much of a pair of pants it can hand over to its beloved IE.
Or, continue to bitch and moan over its attempt to reach the Firefox customers to the point where they say, "Screw it - give them the ol' your browser is not supported" line.
Is this really an argument of my instruction is twice as wide as your instruction?
Other than the PCI addressing limitation of the 32-bit world truncating the amount of free memory available if 4GB is installed, there is little reason yet for the average consumer (you know, the 98% of all computer users out there) to migrate to the 64-bit world in terms of capability.
For all you Microsoft haters - Windows and its development libraries are among the most easy to integrate, adapt, extend, etc. Does BitZtream's argument mean that Microsoft is superior? Embedded IE is as simple as dragging a control to your project... yet, I've passed over that one time and time again.:)
Please read about Chromium before posting seriously ignorant posts about Google taking advantage of opensource code and their goals to incorporate Linux and Mac into the fold. It's funny how everyone beats up a less than one year old browser (to the public at least) so much and expects it to deliver the world.
Further, before you start nailing Google for it, Apple's the one that deserves the finger (take your pick) more than anyone else for taking advantage of opensource code.
The majority of what I do when I browse needs solid rendering performance (the cake). The JavaScript engine badness is the icing. WebKit kicks the pants off IE and Firefox's rendering engine. That's enough of a sell for me.
Nah. I'd say for the most parts, Google developers are using more of what Internet Explorer uses (SSL certificates is an obvious example) and 1.0's requirement for WinHTTP (also Microsoft).
I use Chrome exclusively at home. The speed over Firefox is simply something that I cannot ignore. Yes, there are ads - for the whiners, there are proxies you can install regardless of your operating system that will strip the ads out, much like Adblock Plus does. I don't personally use them, but I hear they work just fine.
Unfortunately, Chrome is considered one of those "banned" pieces of software where I work. Chrome helps itself to your browsing history, the links you go to, etc. For me at home, this is a moot point - Slashdot, Digg, Woot, and a handful of other sites are what Google finds out about my relatively mundane hyperspace experience. But for work, Chrome does not cut it. Firefox is allowed, so at least I'm not shafted with having to use Internet Explorer.
I know that Wikipedia isn't considered the most reliable source of information, but it does give some links to relevant information should we care to look for it.
If we examine the OS spectrum (as software companies no doubtedly do) (see Usage Share of Desktop Operating Systems for an example), Linux comprises 2% of the share. We're excluding servers on purpose, for the sake of this argument, since end-users will no doubt be the ones interested in things like Flash. Let's say those numbers are deflated, and Linux really is about 5%. Of that 5% how many have made the transition to 64-bit? 50%? That means 2.5% of my potential target audience needs a 64-bit product.
Is that fair though? Not really. I'm typing this reply on a perfectly suitable 32-bit Linux on a processor that supports x86-64. Why? Unnecessary. I get proven, stable applications with 32-bit that perfectly suit my needs. I'd say for the DESKTOP OS, there my have been a reality of 25% who use a 64-bit Linux (and that, too, is probably high)
So, with our modified numbers, 1.25% need a 64-bit flash player, while the 98.75% of my potential user base is perfectly fine with my 32-bit product. I think the numbers speak for themselves.
This is the inherent difficulty in adopting something that is designed to be masked under closed source. Mono's Moonlight (ooo, the variant of the evil Silverlight) is open source, allows you to program/script it in a variety of languages and is quickly approaching the same level of compliance with Silverlight 2.0. So, yes, Adobe realizes that they have a viable competitor. And, Adobe will soon realize that the open source movement can produce a product (take The Gimp for example) that can compete virtually toe-to-toe for the average desktop user.
We have a heated discussion on 64-bit Flash player but recall that Adobe's target audience is probably comprised of 95% or better 32-bit platforms. Let's get out of fairly land here and realize that until Microsoft standardizes on a 64-bit version of Windows, 32-bit acceptance will continue to be ubiquitous. When the 64-bit hammer is about to be laid down, then resources (money/programmers/etc.) will come quickly.
Shared libraries in the Linux kernel (and the Windows kernel) for that matter are extremely efficient. The overhead )data section that is dynamic, dependent on the calling binary) incurred is minimal in comparison to a statically linked binary or a binary that uses varying versions of a given library.
Further more, modern kernels can mark the appropriately "dead" (unused) sections of a library to be swapped out, thus freeing that memory to be better used by applications that really need it.
64-bit programs are not intrinsically slower than their 32-bit varieties. A large part of this is compiler maturity. x86 has been around for a long time. x86-64 (via AMD64 and EM-64T) is still relatively new and in a state of evolution that GCC is currently attempting to fully-optimize code that does not explicitly take advantage of the fact that it indeed has twice as many INTEGER registers to play with.
MMX, SSE, and 3DNow! add 128-bit capability, yes, but not as general purpose registers which is why their importance has largely been realized in the mathematical arena versus strictly mundane code.
The concept of versions is important to articulate the API implementation that you advertise to your end user, if applicable. For example:
My Product 1.0 and My Product 2.0 will probably have significant differences in the interface (both user and programmatic).
It is important to note that any goomba would be able to Google for the product in question to determine its history (or lack thereof).
Now onto importance - is it? Absolutely. Take for instance Mac OS X. Apple proudly announces that its OS is no longer a mere sequence digits but uses the roman numeral instead because of its marketability. So, yes, the version number is important. However, unless you're attempting to sell the product to a bunch of goombas, it should be fairly easy to determine that your product is lacking tested experience. Further, when all the "1.0" style bugs come out (and they will), it will further concrete the customers' notion that they made an uneducated choice to purchase your product because of the impression that it is a sixth generation product.
Your management should stand by the quality of the product and be able to advertise it, even if version 0.1. Otherwise, they do not appear to be placing much confidence in it, meaning it's already doomed.
Actually, the features that developers care about the most are included in the Mono 2.0 release, including Linq support. Although Windows Presentation Foundation gets a lot of hype for its goo-gah graphics subsystem, many enterprise developers are sticking with the two things that are supported beautifully in Mono 2.0: Windows Forms and ASP.NET.
Sure - they're pretty, hardware and software. BSD based UNIX boxes on steroids. But entrenching yourself into another set of licensing fees when you've already spent your ass on Microsoft.... ouch. This is not a flame post - it's just something that everyone who's got a budget and needs to deploy hardware and software for a group of employees should realize. Apples cost money - lots of it.
But the upgrade path for MacOS X is fast and consistent (for supposedly the most stable operating system in the world). And its patch set is like a service pack every other month.
Major upgrades cost more than $100 to obtain (and that's PER machine). It's great to see that the now-addicts of MacOS X are finally getting a taste of what Linux distribution advocates have known all along. Most distributions are designed for the stable at heart or for the bleeding-edge group. Linux has that type of flexibility.
He talks about computer crashes?? QUIT BUYING SHITTY HARDWARE. My Dell workstation has been powered on non-stop since it was purchased two and a half years ago. Not one stupid blue-screen. Not one crash. It reboots when it needs to apply a security update (yes, even Linux needs to reboot once in a while). But the power supply has been throwing the juice consistently. The secret? Quit installing every stupid piece of software in existence like dancing pets on the desktop, screensavers that play music when you're not at your desk, etc. What happened to function over form?
Luckily he's not looking at purchasing Apple's notebooks which appear to be fabricated by Indonesian children or prisoners in China (constantly riddled with recalls or faulty video gear, etc.). I can't help to imagine that this same type of lowest bidder technology is added to their PowerMac line. Reliable hardware - Apple? OXYMORON. Just Google for "faulty apple" and see what I mean. Apple is the exclusive HARDWARE and exclusive SOFTWARE vendor. Not competition in the segment. No price competition. You pay too much for hardware that just doesn't stack up against the modern Pentium 4 and Athlon64. For what? Pretty window decorations?
What about the transition (Windows to Mac)? We're not talking one for one here. Sure, he can run free office software and save a buck or two. He can get the plethora of browsers out there that his employees are familiar with in a Windows environment. He says they've made the switch in two days. Sounds to me a bunch of people just like click on the pretty icons with their one button mouse. *bleh*
Operating systems are meant to be functional. The fact alone they are pretty could mean absolutely jack and doodle to people who require function. Take spreadsheets for example - can you image putting border decoration like lights during Christmas time around each cell? Having nice window decorations, fading popup menus, etc. is eye-candy.
Pretty and/or functional - your choice. Cheap PCs - your choice. Linux - your choice. Tons of software - your choice. Tons of support - your choice. See the difference?
Spybot Search & Destroy is my second choice, and except for its tendency to treat files quarantined by Ad-Aware as spyware (well, they are, but they're quarantined!) and to miss a few items that Ad-Aware finds, Spybot is very capable of keeping your PC (mostly) clean. But here's the catch: Spybot is freeware, so it is much more cost-effective than Ad-Aware, but remember the old addage: "You get what you pay for."
Remember when Ad-Aware stopped putting out updates? Spybot, a project done by a person who wanted to weed out their system of treacherous spyware, continued to produce updates. Spybot S&D is an extremely effective application that is free, continually updated, and very powerful in the tasks that it does. It also contains some nice "advanced" options to eliminate the need to go into the registry to clear out some unnecessary things that slow your computer down.
Ad-Aware is a viable product, now. I am not claiming that Spybot is superior to Ad-Aware. I'm merely saying that Spybot gets the job done very well, at a price that cannot be beat.
Think about it. Microsoft now provides the benchmark by which all office suites are influenced by. Creating more ".xls" spreadsheets means that more people will need Microsoft Excel (or compatible office suites) to view, modify, etc. If a group makes a product that is marginally or significantly superior to Excel, Microsoft can than use their ideas to make Excel a better product.
This is why many companies like the idea of funding an open source project. There are millions of creative minds out there churning ideas that the relatively small development group of a commercial package has not even conjured. The practice of suing is not one widely performed by Microsoft, because they can afford to have competition that makes up less than a tenth of the market. Other companies like Apple, on the other hand, has such a small market (and stake) that they aggressively attempt to hoard their interests and ideas to prevent them from being used by others.
Intel is an excellent offering for their continued development on their processor families. AMD is showing that even though they don't have the cycles-per-second title, they can produce extremely fast processors at an affordable price. It's another example of capitalism at work. AMD is a force to be reckoned with the industry, and AMD will do what it needs to continue their R&D and profitability.
I agree with you that Intel is the standard because, frankly, they've earned it. While many companies have come and gone to create an x86 compatible chip - Intel has constantly provided satisfactory desktop performance not only through their CPUs but also their motherboard chipsets. It is up to their major competitor, AMD, to aggressively market their product with major computer manufacturers to get their product into the hands of consumers through support contracts, incentives (price reduction in quantity, etc.), and by provided a superior product than Intel's family of processors.
"'These rumors aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. 'We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track.'
When these multi-year agreements expire, what is to stop the record label or Apple from increasing the prices. The idea is that you, the consumer, would already have hardware, time, and money invested in a song collection you've been steadily adding to since the introduction of iTunes. So, after five years - the contract expires and is renegotiated for a quarter extra per song. If this actually happened how many consumers are actually going to bitch enough to switch off the service? It's the old school drug scenario. Give 'em a lot for a little. Get 'em hooked. Jack up the price. It only makes sense to me that a business would want to continue profitability and increase their profitability with a popular service.
...the dual proc system only wins if software is written to take advanatage of parallelism. And therein lies the rub; parallel programming is still something of a dark art, and few programmers really grasp the issue involved. FOSS compilers lack support for simplified parallel programming (OpenMP), posing another barrier to full utilization of multiple cores.
I believe this was largely an accurate statement before the development of very well written kernels (Win2K+, Linux, *BSD). Modern kernels take advantage of the availability of more than one processor to off-load the primary processor for user-duties. Also, one cannot neglect the advancement in threading models in the aforementioned kernels. Even though applications may not be specifically taylored for multiple processors directly, the use of threads allows the kernel to distribute the tasks across multiple processors.
Software development using threads will also have to take the next leap in properly constructing method calls to be thread-safe. This provision allows many plain ol' applications to take advantage (albeit maybe not at a peak level of efficiency) of multiple processors with little effort.
The potential of multicore and SMP systems is largely predicated on training programmers in parallelism, the availability of tools, and the willingness of software companies to invest in parallel software development.
We are in complete agreement here. If many developers were to focus on the possibilities of a multi-core chip (or an SMP system), it could benefit even the uniprocessor environment by creating better constructs and honoring memory thresholds to a greater degree.
Anyway, to correct you - you can download free versions of SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. from the appropriate web sites; you can then download (probably limited) updates from their sites or get what you need elsewhere on the Internet.
As far as Red Hat is concerned (probably with the other vendors, also), they provide all of their updates to their main product onto all of their mirrors. The premium service allows you to manage a group of machines to get those updates or to have priority access to their fast servers to get those updates while the mirrors are propogating new software throughout the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh.
[sarcasm]I would feel a whole lot better if all the people of the world could access our government systems and do whatever the hell they could possibly want to with those systems[/sarcasm].
Yes, indeed, big brother is watching over who uses their systems, how they use it, and for what purpose and intent. Just like if someone were to come over to your house and use YOUR system, you'd feel better knowing the purpose of the use. "No, sir, that was certainly not MY kiddie porn on MY computer..."
I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types (I'm picking on Flash) that could potentially be exploited far more than an extension that Microsoft produced because they realize that there is a huge established base of Firefox users on their Windows operating system.
I think this one is a win for the Firefox community in the sense that instead of being greeted with "your browser ain't IE, yo" that they are using the fundamental openness of Firefox to be able to reach users who, like me, think IE is the best waste of disk space on my Windows machines. Let Microsoft continue to develop for Firefox and realize how much of a pair of pants it can hand over to its beloved IE.
Or, continue to bitch and moan over its attempt to reach the Firefox customers to the point where they say, "Screw it - give them the ol' your browser is not supported" line.
Is this really an argument of my instruction is twice as wide as your instruction?
Other than the PCI addressing limitation of the 32-bit world truncating the amount of free memory available if 4GB is installed, there is little reason yet for the average consumer (you know, the 98% of all computer users out there) to migrate to the 64-bit world in terms of capability.
With USB2, copying from one flash drive to another takes my CPU utilization to 100%.
Please upgrade from Pentium era processor.
For all you Microsoft haters - Windows and its development libraries are among the most easy to integrate, adapt, extend, etc. Does BitZtream's argument mean that Microsoft is superior? Embedded IE is as simple as dragging a control to your project... yet, I've passed over that one time and time again. :)
Please read about Chromium before posting seriously ignorant posts about Google taking advantage of opensource code and their goals to incorporate Linux and Mac into the fold. It's funny how everyone beats up a less than one year old browser (to the public at least) so much and expects it to deliver the world.
Further, before you start nailing Google for it, Apple's the one that deserves the finger (take your pick) more than anyone else for taking advantage of opensource code.
Hurray for faster JavaScript performance - yay.
The majority of what I do when I browse needs solid rendering performance (the cake). The JavaScript engine badness is the icing. WebKit kicks the pants off IE and Firefox's rendering engine. That's enough of a sell for me.
Nah. I'd say for the most parts, Google developers are using more of what Internet Explorer uses (SSL certificates is an obvious example) and 1.0's requirement for WinHTTP (also Microsoft).
I use Chrome exclusively at home. The speed over Firefox is simply something that I cannot ignore. Yes, there are ads - for the whiners, there are proxies you can install regardless of your operating system that will strip the ads out, much like Adblock Plus does. I don't personally use them, but I hear they work just fine.
Unfortunately, Chrome is considered one of those "banned" pieces of software where I work. Chrome helps itself to your browsing history, the links you go to, etc. For me at home, this is a moot point - Slashdot, Digg, Woot, and a handful of other sites are what Google finds out about my relatively mundane hyperspace experience. But for work, Chrome does not cut it. Firefox is allowed, so at least I'm not shafted with having to use Internet Explorer.
And apparently, me posting via Chrome 2.0 makes me want to hit the Post Anonymously checkbox for some sadistic reason... :)
Dark Mists officially celebrates its 12th year on the Internet.
I know that Wikipedia isn't considered the most reliable source of information, but it does give some links to relevant information should we care to look for it.
If we examine the OS spectrum (as software companies no doubtedly do) (see Usage Share of Desktop Operating Systems for an example), Linux comprises 2% of the share. We're excluding servers on purpose, for the sake of this argument, since end-users will no doubt be the ones interested in things like Flash. Let's say those numbers are deflated, and Linux really is about 5%. Of that 5% how many have made the transition to 64-bit? 50%? That means 2.5% of my potential target audience needs a 64-bit product.
Is that fair though? Not really. I'm typing this reply on a perfectly suitable 32-bit Linux on a processor that supports x86-64. Why? Unnecessary. I get proven, stable applications with 32-bit that perfectly suit my needs. I'd say for the DESKTOP OS, there my have been a reality of 25% who use a 64-bit Linux (and that, too, is probably high)
So, with our modified numbers, 1.25% need a 64-bit flash player, while the 98.75% of my potential user base is perfectly fine with my 32-bit product. I think the numbers speak for themselves.
This is the inherent difficulty in adopting something that is designed to be masked under closed source. Mono's Moonlight (ooo, the variant of the evil Silverlight) is open source, allows you to program/script it in a variety of languages and is quickly approaching the same level of compliance with Silverlight 2.0. So, yes, Adobe realizes that they have a viable competitor. And, Adobe will soon realize that the open source movement can produce a product (take The Gimp for example) that can compete virtually toe-to-toe for the average desktop user.
We have a heated discussion on 64-bit Flash player but recall that Adobe's target audience is probably comprised of 95% or better 32-bit platforms. Let's get out of fairly land here and realize that until Microsoft standardizes on a 64-bit version of Windows, 32-bit acceptance will continue to be ubiquitous. When the 64-bit hammer is about to be laid down, then resources (money/programmers/etc.) will come quickly.
Shared libraries in the Linux kernel (and the Windows kernel) for that matter are extremely efficient. The overhead )data section that is dynamic, dependent on the calling binary) incurred is minimal in comparison to a statically linked binary or a binary that uses varying versions of a given library.
Further more, modern kernels can mark the appropriately "dead" (unused) sections of a library to be swapped out, thus freeing that memory to be better used by applications that really need it.
64-bit programs are not intrinsically slower than their 32-bit varieties. A large part of this is compiler maturity. x86 has been around for a long time. x86-64 (via AMD64 and EM-64T) is still relatively new and in a state of evolution that GCC is currently attempting to fully-optimize code that does not explicitly take advantage of the fact that it indeed has twice as many INTEGER registers to play with.
MMX, SSE, and 3DNow! add 128-bit capability, yes, but not as general purpose registers which is why their importance has largely been realized in the mathematical arena versus strictly mundane code.
The concept of versions is important to articulate the API implementation that you advertise to your end user, if applicable. For example:
My Product 1.0 and My Product 2.0 will probably have significant differences in the interface (both user and programmatic).
It is important to note that any goomba would be able to Google for the product in question to determine its history (or lack thereof).
Now onto importance - is it? Absolutely. Take for instance Mac OS X . Apple proudly announces that its OS is no longer a mere sequence digits but uses the roman numeral instead because of its marketability. So, yes, the version number is important. However, unless you're attempting to sell the product to a bunch of goombas, it should be fairly easy to determine that your product is lacking tested experience. Further, when all the "1.0" style bugs come out (and they will), it will further concrete the customers' notion that they made an uneducated choice to purchase your product because of the impression that it is a sixth generation product.
Your management should stand by the quality of the product and be able to advertise it, even if version 0.1. Otherwise, they do not appear to be placing much confidence in it, meaning it's already doomed.
Actually, the features that developers care about the most are included in the Mono 2.0 release, including Linq support. Although Windows Presentation Foundation gets a lot of hype for its goo-gah graphics subsystem, many enterprise developers are sticking with the two things that are supported beautifully in Mono 2.0: Windows Forms and ASP.NET.
Sure - they're pretty, hardware and software. BSD based UNIX boxes on steroids. But entrenching yourself into another set of licensing fees when you've already spent your ass on Microsoft.... ouch. This is not a flame post - it's just something that everyone who's got a budget and needs to deploy hardware and software for a group of employees should realize. Apples cost money - lots of it.
But the upgrade path for MacOS X is fast and consistent (for supposedly the most stable operating system in the world). And its patch set is like a service pack every other month.
Major upgrades cost more than $100 to obtain (and that's PER machine). It's great to see that the now-addicts of MacOS X are finally getting a taste of what Linux distribution advocates have known all along. Most distributions are designed for the stable at heart or for the bleeding-edge group. Linux has that type of flexibility.
He talks about computer crashes?? QUIT BUYING SHITTY HARDWARE. My Dell workstation has been powered on non-stop since it was purchased two and a half years ago. Not one stupid blue-screen. Not one crash. It reboots when it needs to apply a security update (yes, even Linux needs to reboot once in a while). But the power supply has been throwing the juice consistently. The secret? Quit installing every stupid piece of software in existence like dancing pets on the desktop, screensavers that play music when you're not at your desk, etc. What happened to function over form?
Luckily he's not looking at purchasing Apple's notebooks which appear to be fabricated by Indonesian children or prisoners in China (constantly riddled with recalls or faulty video gear, etc.). I can't help to imagine that this same type of lowest bidder technology is added to their PowerMac line. Reliable hardware - Apple? OXYMORON. Just Google for "faulty apple" and see what I mean. Apple is the exclusive HARDWARE and exclusive SOFTWARE vendor. Not competition in the segment. No price competition. You pay too much for hardware that just doesn't stack up against the modern Pentium 4 and Athlon64. For what? Pretty window decorations?
What about the transition (Windows to Mac)? We're not talking one for one here. Sure, he can run free office software and save a buck or two. He can get the plethora of browsers out there that his employees are familiar with in a Windows environment. He says they've made the switch in two days. Sounds to me a bunch of people just like click on the pretty icons with their one button mouse. *bleh*
Operating systems are meant to be functional. The fact alone they are pretty could mean absolutely jack and doodle to people who require function. Take spreadsheets for example - can you image putting border decoration like lights during Christmas time around each cell? Having nice window decorations, fading popup menus, etc. is eye-candy.
Pretty and/or functional - your choice. Cheap PCs - your choice. Linux - your choice. Tons of software - your choice. Tons of support - your choice. See the difference?
Ad-Aware is a viable product, now. I am not claiming that Spybot is superior to Ad-Aware. I'm merely saying that Spybot gets the job done very well, at a price that cannot be beat.
Think about it. Microsoft now provides the benchmark by which all office suites are influenced by. Creating more ".xls" spreadsheets means that more people will need Microsoft Excel (or compatible office suites) to view, modify, etc. If a group makes a product that is marginally or significantly superior to Excel, Microsoft can than use their ideas to make Excel a better product.
This is why many companies like the idea of funding an open source project. There are millions of creative minds out there churning ideas that the relatively small development group of a commercial package has not even conjured. The practice of suing is not one widely performed by Microsoft, because they can afford to have competition that makes up less than a tenth of the market. Other companies like Apple, on the other hand, has such a small market (and stake) that they aggressively attempt to hoard their interests and ideas to prevent them from being used by others.
Intel is an excellent offering for their continued development on their processor families. AMD is showing that even though they don't have the cycles-per-second title, they can produce extremely fast processors at an affordable price. It's another example of capitalism at work. AMD is a force to be reckoned with the industry, and AMD will do what it needs to continue their R&D and profitability.
I agree with you that Intel is the standard because, frankly, they've earned it. While many companies have come and gone to create an x86 compatible chip - Intel has constantly provided satisfactory desktop performance not only through their CPUs but also their motherboard chipsets. It is up to their major competitor, AMD, to aggressively market their product with major computer manufacturers to get their product into the hands of consumers through support contracts, incentives (price reduction in quantity, etc.), and by provided a superior product than Intel's family of processors.
Software development using threads will also have to take the next leap in properly constructing method calls to be thread-safe. This provision allows many plain ol' applications to take advantage (albeit maybe not at a peak level of efficiency) of multiple processors with little effort.We are in complete agreement here. If many developers were to focus on the possibilities of a multi-core chip (or an SMP system), it could benefit even the uniprocessor environment by creating better constructs and honoring memory thresholds to a greater degree.