asphalt-proof
Aug 11, 02:45 PM
I really want Apple to make an iPhone and have it available by Christmas. I am so ready to dump my Treo. My question is, will it be MS exchange compatible (this is assuming its a PDA phone.) The work-world is addicted to Exchange and it would make sense to have it compatible. Oh well, if wishes were fishes....
amols
Aug 27, 02:02 AM
The next major upgrade to Intel's notebook design isn't expected until early 2007 with a new notebook platform named "Santa Rosa". Santa Rosa will combine the Core 2 Duo processors with new supporting chips as well as Intel's AMT (http://www.intel.com/technology/manage/iamt/) (Active Management Technology) and Robson technology.
I still pity those guys expecting "Major" MBP performance gain by moving to Merom without Santa Rosa. They are as ignorant as those people expecting G5s with their two pound heat sinks to go in powerbooks. I'm just looking forward to see Conroe iMac and better battery life for MBPs. And iPod update off course ;)
I still pity those guys expecting "Major" MBP performance gain by moving to Merom without Santa Rosa. They are as ignorant as those people expecting G5s with their two pound heat sinks to go in powerbooks. I'm just looking forward to see Conroe iMac and better battery life for MBPs. And iPod update off course ;)
kavika411
Mar 24, 12:49 PM
Fixed that for you.
Where does race come into this? I don't ask rhetorically. I may have missed it.
Where does race come into this? I don't ask rhetorically. I may have missed it.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:21 PM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
AidenShaw
Sep 15, 09:53 AM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :).
Any description of the history of NT that doesn't say "Mica" and "Prism" is missing some major details ;) !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_PRISM
Any description of the history of NT that doesn't say "Mica" and "Prism" is missing some major details ;) !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_PRISM
Nuc
Aug 25, 03:29 PM
Well still waiting. I did talk to one of the support people but got transferred. I did mention that I got hung up on yesterday. He said there were a huge amount of people calling about the recall.
I'm listening to a female repeat herself over and over in two different languages. I can't figure out the second language but it's annoying!
-
-
Ok I'm getting refunded since I went and bought one (Nike+ iPod kit) at footlocker today...
Other than the wait I can't complain since they're nice.
Nuc
I'm listening to a female repeat herself over and over in two different languages. I can't figure out the second language but it's annoying!
-
-
Ok I'm getting refunded since I went and bought one (Nike+ iPod kit) at footlocker today...
Other than the wait I can't complain since they're nice.
Nuc
supremedesigner
Jul 14, 03:39 PM
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
Ohhhh! That could work. Have anyone tried this before? Thanks! I'll check on it when I get home! :D
Ohhhh! That could work. Have anyone tried this before? Thanks! I'll check on it when I get home! :D
evil89
Mar 31, 04:32 PM
That's ridiculous.. If It was for HTC, my Hero would have it's support blocked in a 2.1 buggish system with a daylong battery life.. Thanks to "cooked" rom I've 2.3 Gingerbread with an overclocked phone, terminal access and 5 day of battery...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
thogs_cave
Jul 27, 10:11 AM
All of the reviews of the Core 2 Duo say that it crushes AMD in the desktop arena. This is good news
This week, anyhow. This stuff goes back-and-forth like a tennis match.
I don't know if it's a good thing or not, it just is. I prefer AMD on the whole, as I like their design philosophy. But, I'm totally happy with the Intel chip in my MacBook. Whatever works. I find as I get older, the same computers get faster while I just get slower. :D
This week, anyhow. This stuff goes back-and-forth like a tennis match.
I don't know if it's a good thing or not, it just is. I prefer AMD on the whole, as I like their design philosophy. But, I'm totally happy with the Intel chip in my MacBook. Whatever works. I find as I get older, the same computers get faster while I just get slower. :D
glassbathroom
Jul 28, 03:18 AM
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
11thIndian
Apr 11, 11:24 PM
Looking forward to the new final cut studio.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
emptyCup
Aug 5, 06:35 PM
Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve)
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:52 PM
January is not Spring. Do not expect a release in January; Expect a full-featured preview, with an announcement of a final shipping-date.
But Steve always likes to try to be ahead of his own schedules ....underpromising and overdelivering. :)
But Steve always likes to try to be ahead of his own schedules ....underpromising and overdelivering. :)
GQB
Mar 31, 05:09 PM
Thats not at all what this article is saying. The Android project is still going to be "open source".
'Open Source' to the degree that it serves Google's purposes.
The point is that Apple is derided as 'closed' while Google is erroneously beatified as 'open', when in fact there is little difference between the two (other than the fact that I somewhat trust Apple with private info, while I wouldn't trust Google as far as I could throw them.)
'Open Source' to the degree that it serves Google's purposes.
The point is that Apple is derided as 'closed' while Google is erroneously beatified as 'open', when in fact there is little difference between the two (other than the fact that I somewhat trust Apple with private info, while I wouldn't trust Google as far as I could throw them.)
Agilus
Aug 7, 05:06 PM
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
I don't think people are understanding the power of this tool. Sure, it backs stuff up, but what I like about it is that it's basically an automatic versioning (or configuration management) system built into the OS, tailored for a single user, with an intuitive way to search, view, and retrieve old versions. As far as I know, this hasn't been done before.
I do my own personal writing and coding, and it's something I've wanted for a long time. I even considered setting up CVS on my computer so I could do it myself, but never got around to it.
One thing that makes this better/different than other versioning systems, is that it is tailored for a single user. You don't get all the extra stuff that comes along with other version control software that deals with multiple users and file locking, etc. You just get the goodness of having all of your changes. Hopefully it can perform diffs (highlighting the differences between different versions), too!
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
I don't think people are understanding the power of this tool. Sure, it backs stuff up, but what I like about it is that it's basically an automatic versioning (or configuration management) system built into the OS, tailored for a single user, with an intuitive way to search, view, and retrieve old versions. As far as I know, this hasn't been done before.
I do my own personal writing and coding, and it's something I've wanted for a long time. I even considered setting up CVS on my computer so I could do it myself, but never got around to it.
One thing that makes this better/different than other versioning systems, is that it is tailored for a single user. You don't get all the extra stuff that comes along with other version control software that deals with multiple users and file locking, etc. You just get the goodness of having all of your changes. Hopefully it can perform diffs (highlighting the differences between different versions), too!
BWhaler
Aug 26, 11:36 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:41 PM
�We take issue specifically with the notion that Apple is now basically tracking people everywhere they go,� Aaron Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said today in a telephone interview. �If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Reach
Apr 12, 03:01 PM
Would not excluding capture from tape be quite dumb?
Maybe I'm the stone age man using XH A1...
Maybe I'm the stone age man using XH A1...
hyperpasta
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
I have to say that the enclosure news was expected. However, I would really hope that Apple can pull off better specs than that...
boringName
Nov 29, 08:06 AM
Appologies if this has already been brought up, but there were too many posts to read...
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more (http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a016Fkiaras.html)
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more (http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a016Fkiaras.html)
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
steadysignal
Apr 8, 07:16 AM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
roadbloc
Mar 26, 06:43 PM
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
By saying that you clearly misunderstand the idea of a legacy app. Say I have an old PPC game that I still enjoy to play. Why on earth would the dev want to update the old game to work in intel, especially if the dev is busy with new and more profitable endeavours?
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
By saying that you clearly misunderstand the idea of a legacy app. Say I have an old PPC game that I still enjoy to play. Why on earth would the dev want to update the old game to work in intel, especially if the dev is busy with new and more profitable endeavours?
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment