> The last go-around we had multi-processors for a few years and the > software never caught up. Instead the reason for multi-processors > evaporated and they went away. So anyone who was trying to solve the > difficult problems of coding for them was wasting their time.
I would argue that the economics and market are very different now. Multi processor systems were much more expensive than single processor systems. Why pay $300++ for that additional CPU? Multi-core systems are now the norm and have a negligible price hit. Even quad-core systems are only about $100 more than dual-core systems. > With that history, nobody is racing to do the heavy lifting on > multi-cores. It's a very different situation now and software developers that don't take advantage of the new architecture will be left in the dust ultimately. Look for 64-bit software to start coming online finally (even though that's a RAM issue, not CPU). > Much of the time the additional cores sit idle or run at a very low > percentage of their capacity. True, but so what? Do you use every room in your house all the time? You don't have a guest bedroom or 2nd bathroom? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
