backtop


Print 103 comment(s) - last by Cypherdude1.. on Oct 16 at 6:21 PM


Microsoft has focused on strong multicore support in Windows 7 to deliver superior performance. These improvements will really kick in when developers start using Visual Studio 2010, a software development suite that offers greatly improved tools to leverage the power of multiple CPUs.

Jon Devaan is head of Windows Core Operating System Division and led the Windows 7 multicore improvements.  (Source: CNET)
The company is taking multi-core performance very seriously

Microsoft is ready to put the Windows Vista era behind it and is moving on to a Windows 7 world starting October 22. Among Windows 7's greatest strengths is a combination of power and efficiency.  Faster and with new APIs like DirectX 11, the new OS looks to deliver impressive results, assuming driver makers can live up to their end of the bargain and write efficient drivers for the new OS. 

One strength of Windows 7 that's not always talked about, but is lurking under the surface of many of the operating system's advancements is its improved use of multiple cores.  With Intel and AMD flooding the market with multi-core designs, the gigahertz war is dead and a new war is brewing -- a battle for the most cores, and the most efficient cores.

Microsoft has enthusiastically jumped on the opportunity to utilize this power with Windows 7.  The new OS can support up to 256 cores, versus 64 in Vista.  Jon DeVaan, senior vice president of Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division says this change was particularly weighty.  He states, "One dimension is support for a much larger number of processors and getting good linear scaling on that change from 64 to 256 processors.  There's all kinds of depth in that change."

The improvements that enabled the increased number of cores also will improve performance with standard consumer numbers of cores -- typically 2 to 4 -- via improvements in cache and workload balancing.  Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 also features greatly improved support for multi-threading and should allow Windows applications makers to make more efficient Windows 7 apps that leverage multiple cores.

Evans Data analyst Janel Garvin says that is perhaps the most important change.  He states, "An operating system is never going to be able to take an application that isn't already parallel and make it so. Developers still need to multi-thread their apps.  Microsoft has done surprisingly little until recently to help developers write parallel applications, except for their alliance with Intel to promote Parallel Studio."

He continues, "However, in the last year they've made some announcements and promises for Visual Studio 2010 about enhanced tools for parallel programming. It's likely that the success of Parallel Studio has impressed upon them the importance of providing Windows developers with the tools they need to remain competitive going into the future when manycore will be the standard."

Visual Studio 2010 offers many improvements including Task Parallel Library (used for performing tasks like loops simultaneously when circumstances permit), Parallel Language Integrated Query (PLINQ) (used for parallel data operations), Microsoft Concurrency Runtime (scheduling and resource management), Asynchronous Agents Library (provides improved inter-thread messaging), and finally the Parallel Pattern Library (geared for C++ users).

Despite the vast improvements even Mr. DeVaan acknowledges the art of exploiting multiple cores is still evolving.  He adds, "As an industry, we're going to be working hard to make it work better and working with broad set of developers to target (multicore programming) without undue work.  Will these approaches really accomplish it? That's an open question."

With Microsoft's primary competitor Apple also focusing on multi-threading with its developer-geared Grand Central Dispatch multitasking model built into Snow Leopard, the ability to properly leverage multiple cores is a crucial task for Windows 7.  And it appears that the upcoming OS will be rising to the occasion.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: DirectX 1,1
By amanojaku on 10/13/2009 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 5
I was more offended by this:
quote:
Microsoft is ready to put the Windows Vista era behind it
And this:
quote:
The new OS can support up to 256 cores, versus 64 in Vista
It's this not-so-subtle comparison of 7 to Vista that I can't stand. Vista isn't bad at all.

I never see that in the Apple articles, no matter how many bugs, although I'm sure you can use the flimsy argument that Apple never markets OS X updates as new operating systems. Kinda makes you wonder why they charge money for service packs, though.

Ooo, did I just make a not-so-subtle jab at Apple?


RE: DirectX 1,1
By dflynchimp on 10/13/2009 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 5
exactly. And we have to be realistic here. Given OS refresh rates by the time we actually have 256-core cpus windows 7 will be long replaced with the next revision. It is useless to taut a feature or detract for lack of a feature in an OS that was clearly designed to handle the available hardware in its era of introduction.

Vista saw the beginnings of the multicore era up to 4 cores (8 with hyperthreading on intel), but by the time we have 64-core/thread cpus who's going to be griping about vista hitting its limits? That's like complaining you can't run Crysis on Windows 95


RE: DirectX 1,1
By invidious on 10/13/2009 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you in priciple, the legions of people clinging to XP were pretty ticked off when they found out they couldn't take advantage of the 4gb of ram that their motherboards supported. In my opinion this kinda of thing is to be expected when using an OS that is almost a decade old, but that didn't make their complaining any less prevalent.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By exanimas on 10/13/2009 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's not so much an XP problem as it is a 32-bit operating system problem. Besides, general rule of thumb is that if you know how to use 4GB of RAM with XP, you probably understand why you can't on the 32-bit version.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By totallycool on 10/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Ammohunt on 10/13/2009 2:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Its called PAE which is a hack to get around the 32-bit memory address space limitation intel added a few bits when the pentium pro was introduced essential making the cpu 36-bit. Its not true addressing of the memory. you can add the /3GB switch to XP to enable the PAE functionality to XP i believe.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Smilin on 10/15/2009 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
/3GB and /PAE are both available switches in workstation products (xp, 2000pro, vista) but will not allow access to more than 4GB of memory.

The switches are only available in the workstation versions for the purposes of driver development and testing. It is only in the server versions /PAE can help you get past the 4GB physical memory limitation.

Note1: /3GB has nothing to do with physical memory. It merely alters the virtual address space to go from 2/2 to 3/1 for user/kernel.

Note2: /3GB and /PAE should never be used together especially on a box running terminal services. Each depletes system PTEs and when used together can cause a total depletion and a bugcheck.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By DrizztVD on 10/13/2009 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, that is definitely an XP problem, otherwise explain to me how Windows 2000 Advanced server could access 8GB and Windows 2000 Datacenter server could access 32GB of memory.

Vista 32 bit has the exact same limitation as XP. And I wouldn't be surprised if Win7 32 bit was the same. The reason is quite simple really: Developers don't expect users of these operating systems to use PAE. And with the low-level addressing drivers use, these things will crash if they're not PAE-compatible (or Large-Address aware).

So to improve the experience of the average user and keep the blue screens at bay, there is a configuration file that limits the address space. You can copy this config file out of Windows Server OS and replace it with the existing one to gain the use of PAE-like address sizes. But if your PC crashes after a driver install- I told you so.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 12:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Er.... 32bit OS has a 4GB memory limit. It has nothing to do with forcing a limitation.

While its easily possible (and is done) to limit the number of CPUs the OS can access. Like Win7 Home = 1CPU, Win Pro/Ultimate = 2CPUs. Or memory access:

basic = 8 GB
Home = 16GB
Pro = 192GB

PAE of course is trying to fix something that is isn't broken... which of course causes problems.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By createcoms on 10/13/2009 1:24:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the legions of people clinging to XP were pretty ticked off when they found out they couldn't take advantage of the 4gb of ram that their motherboards supported.


And they had so much more success with the 32-bit flavour of Vista did they?

I was running XP x64 with 8GB of RAM, and observed those with Vista 32-bit hitting various ceilings below 4GB so Vista didn't bring with it some new memory window - that was always a 64-bit issue.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By DOSGuy on 10/14/2009 4:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
I used Windows Me quite happily for three or four years with no complaints and very few crashes. When I initially switched to XP SP1, it crashed frequently, which came as a huge surprise to me after all of the WinMe bashing. In my case, XP wasn't as stable as WinMe had been until SP2.

Bashing Windows Me and Vista may be popular, but IMHO it makes you look like an idiot. When my customers would tell me that WinMe was crap, I would ask them if they had ever used it and the answer was always no. Meanwhile I used it at home and couldn't have been happier with it. The same thing happened with Vista: everyone hated, but no one had used it. Well, Vista (and Vista drivers) has matured enough that most people aren't bashing it any more, and no one uses Windows 95/98/Me any more, so there's no point in bashing them. I've used every Microsoft operating system since MS-DOS 5.0 and I've had no major problems with any of them.

If you never used Windows Me, then you're bashing an OS you never used and I have no respect for that. If you actually did use it and found it significantly worse than Windows 95 or 98, then you don't know much about computers and I have no respect for that. If you're simply comparing Windows Me to XP, then you're not smart enough to realize that Windows Me is Windows 4 (the same basic OS as Windows 95) and Windows XP is Windows 5 -- so of course Windows XP was better! -- and I have no respect for that. So basically, I just don't respect people who casually bash Me and Vista. Maybe you should reserve that kind of criticism for a Mac forum, or some forum where people are less tech savvy and won't realize that you're an idiot.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By MrPoletski on 10/14/2009 4:36:22 AM , Rating: 3
Ah so you're the guy who managed to get Windows ME to work without crashing!

how did you do it? ;)


RE: DirectX 1,1
By VooDooAddict on 10/14/2009 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
It was easy, never had an issue ... after fixing the awful OEM settings (which was also a problem with XP too!)

Just disable WinME's System Restore and you removed most of the problems. On top of that, Disable the "Active Desktop", the new indexing, and use Netscape.

You would be left with what felt like a version of Win98 with slightly better memory performance when RAM was over 128Meg.

Bash WinME because it didn't add anything of significant value ... sure. But bash it because it was unstable? I just never saw the stability problems after disabling the above "features".


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Silver2k7 on 10/14/2009 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
if you had to disable features to make it stable
then it was unstable..

weather or not it could be made stable if you know what to disable is another thing altogether =)


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 5:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Voting down a message that doesn't have trolling, insults or anything "bad" is childish. Get over yourself.

If someone posts a message thinking that Windows XP/2000 are related to Windows9x... they NEED to be corrected.

Especially if they thing XP is version 5.0 and WindowsME is 4.0. That is funny.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By FaaR on 10/14/2009 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
I used WinME back in the day, shittiest OS I ever used. A WinME install lasted 6 months tops before it would spontaneously start going buggo and leaking memory like a sieve. It would always get to the point where you couldn't use the PC for more than a few hours before you ran out of conventional memory and "OS resources", at which point icons, buttons etc refused to show up and programs would start crashing due to out of memory errors.

It was total crap. Period.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By AnnihilatorX on 10/14/2009 5:42:38 AM , Rating: 3
However, speed of Vista surpass XP when you have enough RAM, because of the fundamental difference of how Vista uses and perceives RAM.

Vista will cache as much data into RAM as possible, predicting which app you are likely to run, and make frequently used apps launch quicker. This is why it is 'bloated' as you put it. Vista generally launch apps quicker than XP. But as you say, it needs at least 2GB of RAM.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By EasyC on 10/14/2009 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 4
When I made the jump from XP to Vista there was a 200 pt difference in benchmarks for my machine. A month later when newer ATI drivers came out, the difference wasn't in XP's favor.

Vista is indeed not slower than XP unless you have low specs. Besides, I'll take a bloated OS that runs for years over an OS that needs re-installs like clockwork. XP has a habit of "eating itself" and getting slower...and slower...over time.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 5:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
200pt difference in what?

3dMark? Thats useless. 200points is what.. a frame, or half a frame.

You have to benchmark actual games. Notice serious sites don't use 3DMark.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 5:16:44 PM , Rating: 1
Voting down a message that doesn't have trolling, insults or anything "bad" is childish. Get over yourself.

Post is based on well known constant facts about performance and memory requirements. If Vista wasn't a memory hog, $300 cheap PCs wouldn't come with 3GB of RAM.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By inighthawki on 10/13/2009 12:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be a smarter idea to include support for farther into the future than the chances that it won't work because some manufacturing miracle brought about a quick rise in technology? Sure it's easy now to say "that's so unnecessary" but in a few years, 256 cores might be a close reality...


RE: DirectX 1,1
By wsko on 10/13/2009 1:22:36 PM , Rating: 4
A fully loaded workstation/server computer with 8 upcoming octacore Nehalem-EX Xeon processor plus hyperthreading will get you 128 cores. This kind of system is only months away. So it's certainly within Windows 7 lifetime to have support for more than 64 cores.

When you want to run Windows-based scientific simulation software in a powerful workstation machine, you want Windows 7 to be capable of handling all those cores.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By dlapine on 10/13/2009 4:41:02 PM , Rating: 4
Window 7 only supports a max of 2 physical cpus

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w...

We're not likely to see any 64 core cpus in the near future, not on consumer systems. So the 128 core support is a marchitechture feature, rather than something really useful when comparing Vista and Windows 7.

As if anyone needed encouragement to leave Vista...


RE: DirectX 1,1
By maxxcool on 10/13/2009 5:27:29 PM , Rating: 5
Correct, you would need a copy of server 2008-r2... which is based entirely on windows-7's kernel.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Frallan on 10/14/2009 6:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
CPUs or Kernels?

Sockets or CPUs?

A bit of confusion here?

Will Win7 support 2 sockets with x kernels in the CPU or will Win7 support 2 kernels?

I guess the first suggestion appies but I would like to know since I haven't touche win7 yet.

/F


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 7:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 supports 1 or 2 PHYSICAL CPUs, depending on version.

Basic & Home = 1 CPU(It could have 1 core, or 64, doesn't matter)

Pro, Ult & Enterprise = 2 CPUs

Kernels is the "heart" of the OS. Cores are the "brains" of the CPU.

This chart may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Co...


RE: DirectX 1,1
By maxxcool on 10/13/2009 4:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgetting that Server 2008 is based on vista, therefore is limited to only supporting 64 cores.

Server 2008-r2 is based on windows-7, and being able to address more than 64 cores is much better when dealing with datacenter's, clusters and what-not.

So not a useless feature at all.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By segerstein on 10/13/2009 9:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, 2008R2 and 7 use exactly the same kernel. They also use same service packs. It's just easier for Microsoft to maintain one codebase and then build 5 different client Windows and 5 server Windows versions with slightly different features.

It also makes things easier for developers and users, compatibility wise.

On a high-end workstation, two-way 12core hyperthreading, you come to 48 logical CPUs. Quite close to the NT 6.0 limit of 64 processors.

On 8-way 12-core system you come to 96 CPUs, no hyperthreading...


RE: DirectX 1,1
By MrPoletski on 10/14/2009 4:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
Supporting more than 64 cores will allow windows 7 to run those large scale server farm style machines. Windows 7, supercomputer edition.. lol


RE: DirectX 1,1
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2009 11:44:57 AM , Rating: 5
So now that we finally have 8-bit core support, I suppose we can call this VGA, or Virtually Gigantic Ability support. After time though, I bet Microsoft has next in the pipe true 16-bit core support, or High Core and after that... 24-bit core support! Finally, we will have True Core support.

Man, the future looks bright. ;)


RE: DirectX 1,1
By 3minence on 10/13/2009 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the OP has it right. What Microsoft is trying to get away from is the public perception of Vista. You are right that Vista, especially after SP1 was released, was a good OS. Unfortunately the public didn't see it that way. Windows 7, on the other hand, has an excellent public perception.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2009 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 3
It's all about the smoke and mirrors. The Vista -> Windows 7 turnaround in public perception was an excellent move on their part and to be honest has little to do with real changes and just slapping a sticker on that says "Windows 7".


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By just4U on 10/14/2009 2:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
Is win7 better then Vista? Sure to a degree. Altho if people have Vista installed, moving to Win7 is not really all that critical. I'd much rather see people off XP then off Vista. As both Vista/Win7 are clearly better.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By MrPoletski on 10/14/2009 5:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
I live with vistas failings so I can use direct 10.1, I've been running it for some time now. Not as fast, stable or intuitive as XP. Still not such a bad OS tho, but it certainly didn't begin that way.

Thing is MS took on a major new driver model with Vista, the last time they did that was with.... windows ME.

I think Vista will end up being remembered as windows ME is now.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By DOSGuy on 10/14/2009 5:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. They're both good operating systems that received a lot of criticism. But let's not forget that Windows XP had the same problems when it came out. XP broke compatibility with a lot of programs I needed, so I avoided it like the plague for about 3 years. The difference between these three operating systems is that XP lasted long enough to turn its reputation around thanks to Vista's long development cycle.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By DOSGuy on 10/14/2009 5:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
You would rather use Windows 98 than Vista? That can't be true.

We still have one computer at work that has Windows 98 on it and I can't stand it. It was a great OS then, but it isn't any more. Same goes for Windows 3.1 and DOS. I love them both, but they don't do what I need them to do any more. Windows 98 doesn't do what I need it to do any more, and Vista does. So the question is: what are you using computers for that Windows 98 is good enough and Vista isn't?


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 7:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
Well..

When a person starts bringing up Amiga as a suitable replace for WindowsXP and considering a 1mhz 128K Commodore maybe better than Vista or anything else in the past 20 years. That part of the discussion should be considered "silly". Hence the :) (That is a smiley face)

But yeah, I'd go Linux or Mac before vista, that much I mean 100%. Luckily for MS... Apple doesn't sell decent $400~700 desktop computers. But I'm not a big apple fan either. I bought MS products, never an Apple one. The only Apple products I ever owned/have is (A) A macIIsi given to me and 2 Apple plastic cups.

Windows98 will run up to AMD64 and P4 computers... but Win98 is vastly out-dated. There is about 1% of total PC out there still using Win98.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By SiliconAddict on 10/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2009 12:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Your exaggerations are quite over the top. Even at launch Vista was not the sluggish POS you describe it to be. With SP1 the performance was again improved, not counting all the improvements made over time in the tuesday hotfixes.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By AlexWade on 10/13/2009 1:27:15 PM , Rating: 5
In my experience, it was not Vista that was sluggish, it was hardware companies and computer builders who assumed Vista was just XP with a coat of paint. Despite being available for about 2 months before launch, there was poor driver support. So guess what that is going to do? And then computers were sold with less 512 MB of memory, which was further reduced with the shared memory for the graphics adapter. So, Vista came out, it was slow because of lack of drivers and ignorance. People bought it, blamed Microsoft when they should blame Dell and HP and Acer and Gateway for selling them a computer barely strong enough for Vista. With enough power, Vista is great.

Still, in my opinion, 7 is Microsoft's best work ever. Thanks to TechNet, I've been running 7 RTM since day 1 and I love it.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By The0ne on 10/13/2009 8:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't used Vista if many PC configurations to know what you're talking about. Even after SP1 Vista still crawls. I've since installed Windows 7 RC1 on all the desktops, laptops, tablets laptops I could get my hands on. Doesn't matter if they're aging or new Windows will still be snappy compare to Vista (any versions). That to me speaks clarity just due to to volume I've seen.

The above is specifically true of laptops that were just crawling with Vista to get any work done efficiently. Now they are running Windows 7 with Aero and there are no slowdowns. I don't need anymore proof to convince me not to switch over, considering I've not had major issues as of yet except for the few BSOD with hardware incompatibilities.

It's a minor improvement over Vista but a worthy enough successor to XP for the upgrade. That's not to say abandon XP if you still need the OS for software compatibility.

And I'm not sure why people would even be so ignorant to say it's Vista with a label "Windows 7" slapped on. These people are morons and buffoons, at the very least. The problem here is that some of us know these people know enough not to be saying such idiotic things but they still do it to win the Dwarwin Award. That is just wow, WTF, to me.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Smilin on 10/15/2009 3:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you replying to your own post?

Take your downmod like a man and STFU.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By blppt on 10/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Frallan on 10/14/2009 6:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
BS Kenobi

I am using the fastest hardware I have ever had on Vista SP2 and its still slower then my last generation hardwware. I went from an Opteron dual core at 2GHz and 1 GB of DDR with XP to a E6600 OC to between 2,6 and 3,0 GHz dual core with 2 GB of DDR2 Vista.

The performance i get today is abyssimal compered to what i used to have.

/F


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 7:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
OUCH! Yeah, I still see that today. I worked on a okay notebook with 3GB of RAM... faster than my notebook, easily (hardware stats). But XP or Win7, my older notebook runs circles around the XP one. I've cleaned up the notebook quite a bit took, disabled alot of services, junkware, etc.

I have a 3.0Ghz Intel Quad. I wouldn't say it runs slow with XP... but I did went ahead in stuck on Win7rc a few weeks ago since my XP developed a problem and I wanted to see what works or not work.

My system runs very fast. Coping some files can still be a bit slow (not all the time). But I'm far happier with 7 over vista.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By jRaskell on 10/13/2009 1:28:39 PM , Rating: 3
You're seriously going to complain about load times with a 5400RPM drive? That's funny.

I may need to reboot my system once every few weeks, tops. The rest of the time, I just put it to sleep. System power draw drops to less than 10 watts. Wake time is less than 5 seconds (It takes longer for my monitor to turn back on).

Windows 7 is definitely an upgrade in many respects, but I've been perfectly happy with Vista for nearly a year now. I wll upgrade to 7, but not for the reasons most people consider it better than Vista.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Pirks on 10/13/2009 1:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that's right, idiots like SiliconAddict never heard word "sleep", they always shut down their PC as if it's 20th century outside.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By stonemetal on 10/13/2009 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's this not-so-subtle comparison of 7 to Vista that I can't stand. Vista isn't bad at all.


I always liked that about the news about MS. 64 cores isn't bad but look we made it better not only better but 4 times better. Compare this to the news about Apple's Grand Central. Which is basically threading on our OS is horrible, and rather than fix the actual problem we created this new thing that if you squint just right works around it. Yep we're that good.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By sprockkets on 10/13/2009 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is basically threading on our OS is horrible, and rather than fix the actual problem we created this new thing that if you squint just right works around it.


Err, what are you talking/referring to?

FYI Windows is so pathetic with resources that it runs all its stuff under one "svchost" instead of one process per a task like any Unix system does, because each process spawned uses a lot of overhead in WinNT systems.

Adding insult to injury, 64 bit Windows isn't really 64 bit. It uses LLP64, in which all integral types remain 32-bit values and only pointers expand to 64-bit values. Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/...

The rest of the world chose LP64, and you can read here why they did:

http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html

Why don't you first read up on LLVM first before saying OSX is deficient? While Microsoft is promising this down the road, OSX Snow Leopard already delivered.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By stonemetal on 10/13/2009 10:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p...
OS X sucks at threading. It is something they need to work on but rather than fix the issue they have come up with GCD to ride the marketing wave around multi-threading with out doing the work. Microsoft is doing the same here only they have improved the existing system instead of working around it like the Grand Central BS does.

To start and stop a thread in Linux takes about 1/50 the time it takes to start a thread in OS X. Actually thread creation time in Windows and OS X is the same.
quote:
LLVM first before saying OSX is deficient

What does LLVM have to do with OS X? You can run it on windows or Linux just as easily.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By sprockkets on 10/14/2009 12:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, thought that what you were referring to :)

Here's the problem with that article, one that made this site look bad.

MySQL has pre compiled binaries to overcome this issue, thus, the issue of performance on OSX was severely understated. In real life, no one is going to hand compile mysql when the pre compiled ones are much better anyhow.

This also was back in the day when the server was G5 based.

This article better explains it; it is a pro apple site, but since I was around for the 80s and 90s, my recollection of history coincides with his. He also documents the failures of Apple as well.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.linuxmyth2.2.ht...

Whoops, Clang, a front end to LLVM is what Apple is sponsoring. Sure you can run it on other platforms; unlike Microsoft, Apple isn't anal about being cross-platform where it can benefit them :)


RE: DirectX 1,1
By sprockkets on 10/13/2009 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Was Vista bad? I'll let Microsoft speak for themselves:

"But we know a few of you were disappointed by your early encounter. Printers didn't work. Games felt sluggish. You told us—loudly at times—that the latest Windows wasn't always living up to your high expectations for a Microsoft product."

http://www.microsoft.com/india/windows/windows-vis...

High expectations Microsoft? If history is any indication, it seems 3 times is a charm; first iteration sucks, then the second one is a good improvement, then the third time its a product people actually want. Witness that with their a/v program, Vista (Vista to Vista SP1 to Windows 7) and the Zune.

Anyhow, sure, OSX has been reported to have show stopper bugs as well, but as arstechnica.com has pointed out, every version of OSX is faster than the previous version, on the same hardware. You can't say that for any version of Windows, period (but Win7 might be the first).


RE: DirectX 1,1
By zsdersw on 10/13/2009 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but as arstechnica.com has pointed out, every version of OSX is faster than the previous version, on the same hardware.


BFD... Why would I want OSX when I can get a good Linux distro for free and not worry about being locked into worshipping at Steve Jobs' altar?


RE: DirectX 1,1
By sprockkets on 10/13/2009 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
Who said using OSX locked you into anything? Macs run Linux natively with EFI and Windows through a BIOS layer?

Bud, I use Linux, and people who use OSX say it is Linux with professional support, and switch to it when they get tired of tinkering with the OS and want to get REAL work done.

Sometimes I get tired of trying to get Avidemux to work, or dealing with KDE3/4 messing each other up, or how Linux lacks good 3D support.

What professional apps exist on Linux? Any? No, for the desktop, not for server use? Would you recommend the average person to use Linux and expect them to be OK on their own without help?

Here's the last reason why Linux in their own way sucks: On anandtech, they showed how Linux runs Win32 apps on WINE faster than their native apps. That's embarrassing.

When I don't have to spend 30 minutes getting my wheel mouse buttons and the side button to work in Linux, maybe then it will have a chance.


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 3:05:46 AM , Rating: 5
That is something that Linux fanboys never quite understood. This is also how us Amiga users didn't understand why MS-DOS and Macs were outselling Amigas in the mid-late 80s. (Of course most of that was stupid Commodore.

Linux is a very "geek" technical OS. Its beautiful, its elegant, its fairly rock solid. They have TOTAL control of the OS. To a degree, when I was a kid - I loved that about my Amiga. They are more Computer people than anything else. Hey, I'm in the computer business myself :)

BUT they NEVER or DON'T understand the REAL world of computing. People are stupid or just want to get the job done. Linux / Open Office does the same stupid techno-geek crap that Amiga did.

Explain this. Back in the mid-late 80s, Amiga was easily the most powerful desktop PC money could buy. It multi-taskes, it had color graphics, it played games... even TODAY, a 1985 vintage Amiga can BROWSE the Internet (with an aftermark video-card (if you want more than 16 colors) and OS4. Each version of the OS 1>2>3 was faster and better than the previous. The costs for these started at about $600 (No HD) and about $1000~2000 with HD, RAM, modem, monitors (14" CRTs were $400~800) - far cheaper than the $5000(B&W)~$8000(Color+HD) MacII or $2500~5000 286.

MS-DOS was just a black screen with typing- commands. NO graphics. You may have 16 colors, 256 if you bought a $300 add-on card. Beeping was the only sound. Forget multi-tasking and your file names were 8.3 like: WORDPERF.EXE (yeah that sucked) while Amiga has something like 64character file names - upper & lower case (WOW!) that would take MS 10 years to "catch up".

Macs were a B&W PCs with tiny screens. Single task only and more expensive than they are today. If you wanted a cheap Apple - that meant spending $1200+ on an 8bit AppleIIc! (ARGH) A friend gave away his MacII to a Mac collector many years ago (He went to cheaper Win95/98) - he had originally paid $6000 for the computer alone in 1989... it was worth $50 in 1995 ;)

Amigas... they were techno & gamer computers. Knew we had something that made MS-DOS & Mac look like a joke. But that was the problem... Only Newtek was able to make Amiga a serious Video workstation. They exist today selling PC products (use wikipedia for history). But for Office and productivity? Totally SCREWED UP! Apple PAID MS, WordPerfect and other companies to MAKE software for the MAC. No software = no hardware sales, DUH!

The millions C= blew on crappy advertising and management could have been resolved by simply PAYING for KEY programs to be ported to Amiga. As well as Video output that worked on VGA monitors (not just the last or top end models).

Same with Linux... IBM has deep pockets. They talk about WE'LL push Linux for desktop. Er... okay, then PAY Adobe to make Creative Suite (photoshop, etc) for Linux. PAY for Quickbooks and Quicken. Can't pay MS for MS-Office... not unless theres an ability to sell millions of copies. BUT pay to have Open Office improved or make a better product.

OpenOffice, an excellent office suite that is on par with Office 2000... mostly. doesn't cut it in the REAL world. GIMP isn't Photoshop. The infighting between KDE and Gnome creates non-standards for normal software support.

When someone uses a computer, it NEEDS to be a click, something happens (easily) and they see magic. They don't care about the "blue smoke" under the hood. Ubuntu does a very good job with Linux... but the apps and issues are still there. Linux many never be an idiot-proof OS. The Amiga user could actually use the GUI forever, but the power under the hood was always there (As is MacOS X). Linux isn't like that.

30 minutes for a mouse config? ugh!


RE: DirectX 1,1
By icanhascpu on 10/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Silver2k7 on 10/14/2009 2:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Microsoft is ready to put the Windows Vista era behind it"
lol this is Vista Second Edition basically.. so whats their point?

Also DirectX 11 will work from Vista onwards.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki