Vista SUCKS at multicore...why do I want vista again? :(

The OS itself isn't doing nearly enough work for it to bother being multicore anyway. Vista is just RAM hungry. It doesn't need that great a CPU to work well. As always, software running on top of the OS can be multicore-capable.
 
You missed the word "full" in your link description. Vista is based on WS2003 and works just as good with multi-core CPUs. I actually don't *want* the OS to hog any more resources than it already does. :p

Speaking to The Venture Forum conference, Bryan Barnett, a manager for external research programmes in the Microsoft Research group, said that one of the areas being looked at was how to better use multicore processors.

He said that it was important to take full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available. He said that this requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist today. While VoleWare does run on multicore processors, it is not fully optimised for them, he admitted.

Name one x86 OS that does take "full advantage" of or is "fully optimized" for multi-core CPUs. I'll wait. :p
 
This is just another thread in the long line of ones where the OP finds it easier to bitch and whine at Microsoft instead of bothering to educate themselves. There's a lot of foot to mouth syndrome going around, and Maximus might have the worst case of it. Let's all just make random accusations at Microsoft, instead of finding the truth!!! Yay!

What was that famous quote? 'Tis better to remain silent and let people assume you are a fool, rather than open your mouth and confirm it? Yeah, that works here.
 
djnes said:
This is just another thread in the long line of ones where the OP finds it easier to bitch and whine at Microsoft instead of bothering to educate themselves. There's a lot of foot to mouth syndrome going around, and Maximus might have the worst case of it. Let's all just make random accusations at Microsoft, instead of finding the truth!!! Yay!

What was that famous quote? 'Tis better to remain silent and let people assume you are a fool, rather than open your mouth and confirm it? Yeah, that works here.

Ok, well lets look at it from the other end. MS suggested that somewhere down the line.....who knows when...that there will be a MS OS that fully takes advantage of a multicore cpu.
If some of you are suggesting that its better that it doesn't as of now and that all you need to depend on is if the apps are multi-core compatible, why would MS need to make the OS multicore compatible at all?
Or perhaps I should say what would be the advantages?
 
Better support for the OS itself, No one would argue and say it's perfect, and none of the previous OSes could do a perfect balance between processors/cores.

However, the most valid and telling point is that the OS isn't what is most important right now. The OS itself isn't doing enough to really justify having two cores. Think about it. If you have a Pentium III machine and a new A64 machine, both will seem nearly the same moving around explorer, opening the My Computer properties, etc.

Now start to think about apps and games. If something like Adobe Premiere, or Doom 3 or so could really take advantage of the extra core, you'd really REALLY see some gains. That's all that matters right now, if the apps and games are being written to handle the dual cores.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
Ok, well lets look at it from the other end. MS suggested that somewhere down the line.....who knows when...that there will be a MS OS that fully takes advantage of a multicore cpu.

Read the statement more carefully:

He said that this requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist today

If you don't even have development tools, how the hell are you supposed to produce code?
 
Lawd have mercy, I knew this would happen. :rolleyes:

Having fully evaluted Vista, and after much research, I can describe it like this: Vista is nothing more than Windows XP with a fancy GUI (which Apple has had for years), lots of DRM, and minor performance and stability boosts. M$ does it again.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Lawd have mercy, I knew this would happen. :rolleyes:

Having fully evaluted Vista, and after much research, I can describe it like this: Vista is nothing more than Windows XP with a fancy GUI (which Apple has had for years), lots of DRM, and minor performance and stability boosts. M$ does it again.

How have you evaluated Vista's DRM?
 
InorganicMatter said:
Having fully evaluted Vista, and after much research, I can describe it like this: Vista is nothing more than Windows XP with a fancy GUI (which Apple has had for years), lots of DRM, and minor performance and stability boosts

That fact that you completely ignored the most important change in Vista, the new security features, tells me that you really haven't "fully evaluated" it at all.
 
InorganicMatter said:
I want an OS that will optimise itself for two CPUs if it detects 2 CPUs.

There's not much point. In term of CPU usage, the OS itself uses so little that it's not really practical to optimize it.

pigster said:
That fact that you completely ignored the most important change in Vista, the new security features, tells me that you really haven't "fully evaluated" it at all.

Agreed. The entire network stack has been totally rewritten for better security and seamless integration of IPv6. This is probably the most important change in Vista, though it's not outwardly visable.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
According to the geniuses at MS Vista won't be optimized for multicore processors.
Microsoft dreams of Vista's successor ----- Needs to take advantage of multicores

Neither Intel or AMD have released the necessary reference compilers for producing truly optimized dual core code. I would have thought you'd be flaming away at them, or perhaps the genius doctoral computer science candidates who are working on such things for their doctoral thesis.

Software has always trailed hardware by 4-5 years because of the time it usually takes to get really good tools, and then learn to use them.

1. Two years to create tools to barely capable of realizing the capability of the CPU once a working model is actually available
2. Two more years to really optimize it (during which time the programmers are learning how to change their own thinking)
3. Another year or so for the programmers to work around the quirks of the optimized compilers to create truly optimized code

Current compilers can't even really deal with hyperthreading, much less the multi-core hyperthreading that is on the way shortly.

Oh wait, figuring out all the subtleties of dealing with the detection of thread optimizable code from standard linear code which the programmer is currently turning out in linear fashion because he hasn't had the required time to completely restructure his entire design and programming methodology is really easy isn't it. Oh yeah, multiple branch predictor interaction on separate logical processors is really easy to understand as well.

You'll write the compiler that's needed tonight in your spare time, right?
 
CEpeep said:
The OS itself isn't doing nearly enough work for it to bother being multicore anyway. Vista is just RAM hungry. It doesn't need that great a CPU to work well. As always, software running on top of the OS can be multicore-capable.

djnes said:
However, the most valid and telling point is that the OS isn't what is most important right now. The OS itself isn't doing enough to really justify having two cores. Think about it. If you have a Pentium III machine and a new A64 machine, both will seem nearly the same moving around explorer, opening the My Computer properties, etc.

Now start to think about apps and games. If something like Adobe Premiere, or Doom 3 or so could really take advantage of the extra core, you'd really REALLY see some gains. That's all that matters right now, if the apps and games are being written to handle the dual cores.

The best points in the thread right here.

There really is nothing an OS should be doing that justifies to having to use dual cores right now. The apps running on top of the OS should be dual core aware (if needed).

 
nessus said:
I would have thought you'd be flaming away at them
This sums up the entire thread. Why make a true and logical comment when it's SOOOOOOOO much cooler to blame everything on Microsoft?
 
InorganicMatter said:
Lawd have mercy, I knew this would happen. :rolleyes:

Having fully evaluted Vista, and after much research, I can describe it like this: Vista is nothing more than Windows XP with a fancy GUI (which Apple has had for years), lots of DRM, and minor performance and stability boosts. M$ does it again.

But they PROMISED it was gonna be a real next gen OS!!! :(
WinFS, DX10, I mean it was assumed they was gonna have it so that it would fully take advantage of the modern cpus umm what else....oh yeah and that "advanced" GUI.

The only thing that is preventing me from exploding from anger is the rumor I heard of a stand alone version of dx10 called dx9 L. Can someone confirm this?
If its not the case, then vista is just a way to cram more DRM down consumers throats and forcing users to get it because thats the only way their getting dx10. :mad:
 
pigster said:
That fact that you completely ignored the most important change in Vista, the new security features, tells me that you really haven't "fully evaluated" it at all.

"security" haahhaahahaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :p ........righhhhhhht. ;)
 
StalkerZER0 said:
"security" haahhaahahaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :p ........righhhhhhht. ;)

The entire network stack has been completely rewritten from scratch. This is the single best move Microsoft could have made to protect their OS, aside from removing it alltogether. Please do your research and be mindful of what you're about to post before doing so. There are plenty of other places on the internet you can go to make a fool out of yourself, should you so desire.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
"security" haahhaahahaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :p ........righhhhhhht. ;)

Pretty much what I expected from an "expert" like you.
 
Just to satisfy you guys I will give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a full year to fix and patch (and patch and patch and patch) what is sure to be a very very buggy launch. A YEAR from launch I fully expect vista to be a pile of crap when it comes to security (and everything else) just like all the rest of their OSes or worse....it will be so ridiculously security minded that it will effectively be useless to a consumer.

Are you willing to bet your life that its going to be any different? Somehow I think not.
 
KevinO said:
The best points in the thread right here.

There really is nothing an OS should be doing that justifies to having to use dual cores right now. The apps running on top of the OS should be dual core aware (if needed).

True in the desktop world, not true when talking about a server. In the distributed environment currently in favor, just about any computer is effectively a server.

Setup a box where you need to keep multiple gigabit interfaces fed. You'll be very happy for an OS that is multi-proc/multi-core smart, and that OS will be tying up a significant portion of your CPU.

Add encryption on top of that without using accelerator cards and your OS/CPU will be footing even more of the load.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
A YEAR from launch I fully expect vista to be a pile of crap when it comes to security (and everything else) just like all the rest of their OSes or worse....it will be so ridiculously security minded that it will effectively be useless to a consumer.

So which is it, will it be a pile of crap when it comes to security or will it be ridiculously security minded ?
 
eastvillager said:
Solaris x86.

That was the only one I could think of off the top of my head. Does Mac OS X (x86) have dual core optimizations in it?
 
pigster said:
So which is it, will it be a pile of crap when it comes to security or will it be ridiculously security minded ?

Both probably. I expect that the only way to cover up their problems is to add so many security restrictions to try to protect itself that it will just be too inconvenient for someone to use.
Imagine if an officer from the old gestapo were to move into your house and held a LCD screen up to his face. And every day you were forced to use him as a personal computer. Imagine having to deal with him everyday for information processing.
That would get old.........FAST!
 
CEpeep said:
That was the only one I could think of off the top of my head. Does Mac OS X (x86) have dual core optimizations in it?
The same number that Vista has, which is more than 2k3 Server or OS X PPC has for multiple CPUs.

Some people miss the point: it isn't the OS that needs to take full advantage of multiple CPUs, it's the apps that run on it. The OS only plays middle-man to the apps. No games take advantage of dual cores, so even if the OS did you wouldn't be seeing extra frames per second in your favorite shooter.

It's like the world has forgotten how software works.
 
GreNME said:
The same number that Vista has, which is more than 2k3 Server or OS X PPC has for multiple CPUs.

Some people miss the point: it isn't the OS that needs to take full advantage of multiple CPUs, it's the apps that run on it. The OS only plays middle-man to the apps. No games take advantage of dual cores, so even if the OS did you wouldn't be seeing extra frames per second in your favorite shooter.

It's like the world has forgotten how software works.

This is what I've been trying to explain to the OP throught the entire thread.
 
GreNME said:
The same number that Vista has, which is more than 2k3 Server or OS X PPC has for multiple CPUs.

Some people miss the point: it isn't the OS that needs to take full advantage of multiple CPUs, it's the apps that run on it. The OS only plays middle-man to the apps. No games take advantage of dual cores, so even if the OS did you wouldn't be seeing extra frames per second in your favorite shooter.

It's like the world has forgotten how software works.
Shouldn't the apps be the "middle man" so to speak. I mean, if the apps are made for a specific OS, and they are then threaded for multicore, why then could it not be possible for the OS to be optimized for multicore and the applications just use that to be optimzed themselves. What I said may sound funny, but it makes sense in my head lol.
 
belmicah said:
Shouldn't the apps be the "middle man" so to speak. I mean, if the apps are made for a specific OS, and they are then threaded for multicore, why then could it not be possible for the OS to be optimized for multicore and the applications just use that to be optimzed themselves. What I said may sound funny, but it makes sense in my head lol.

No, the OS (well, the kernel specifically) controls all interaction (through drivers) between software and hardware. Thus it can properly be referred to as a "middle man". The interface that lies ontop of it (whether it be graphical or text-based) is just a way of giving the user the ability to access software.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
"security" haahhaahahaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :p ........righhhhhhht. ;)

Wow. How did I ever miss your cogent arguments about the Vista security model?

If I've decoded the above argument correctly, we should be translating the ASCII code to hex, performing a bitwise shift, replacing all the letter values of the resulting string with the value 8, which results in the following when re-encoded back ot ASCII:

haahhaahahaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa translates to:

Non-networked DOS was the most secure platform evar!

This is by far the best argument in this thread from you so far! I'm now convinced.

We should all be bowing to the technical argumentation of StalkerZer0. We are all unworthy!
 
CEpeep said:
This is what I've been trying to explain to the OP throught the entire thread.

Why are you bothering to try to explain anything to the OP? He's obviously not actually interested in anything other than stirring people up. I have been enjoying some of the other posters in the thread though.

I'll stop playing with the troll now. Its bad manners to poke sticks at trolls through their locked mind cages.
 
djnes said:
This is just another thread in the long line of ones where the OP finds it easier to bitch and whine at Microsoft instead of bothering to educate themselves.
I don't normally contribute to such threads, but I will make an exception to underscore djnes' analysis.

The article that this thread has linked to is at The Inquirer. It's a terrible site for depth and accuracy in reporting. They'll get things wrong six ways from Sunday in an article, and not bother to correct anything.

The article does not say that "MS Vista won't be optimized for multicore processors". The InfoWorld that The Inquirer "quotes" doesn't say that, either. It says that the OS isn't fully optimized.

Most laypeople don't understand optimization. Only the simplest things can be fully optimized; and even then, they won't be for long because something in the platform will change and cause a different solution to be the optimal one.

On even tiny projects -- like the ones students as for help on over in the programming forum -- it's very difficult to get an optimized solution, not to mention something that's fully optimized. At some point, after all, the project has to be finished and turned in.

It's simply impossible to think of a project that's the scope and size of a modern PC operating system as being fully optimized for any dimension of its operation.

There's only a few percent difference between "optimized" and "fully optimized" in nominal cases. (And, wow, what a generalization!) But I don't think anyone can reasonably assert that "Vista SUCKS at multicore", particularly without any analysis.

There are lots of people here who have jumped on the bandwagon, bashing away. I would wonder what they think what "fully optimized for multicore processors" would very specifically mean. Changing the scheduler to do something about affinity? Offering different types of threads that indicate their relationship to other threads, in order to improve scheduling? Use multiple cores for "small" tasks? Something else?

Let's not go off half-cocked. Let's instead think it through. What specific things do you believe that the OS itself (aside from the applications running on it) need to do in order to "fully take advantage" of multicore applications?
 
eastvillager said:
Solaris x86.

How exactly did they optimize for multi-core OS's when multi-core x86 CPU's hadn't been released yet when the last version major version of Solaris X86 was released?

I know the thread scheduler for Solaris is more efficient for multiple CPU's than MS's design (especially above 4 CPUs), but the performance of the IP stack being so optimized for longer data transfers than most has usually off-set the performance gain for network apps.

I didn't think they even fully supported the NoEX bit on AMD CPU's until the Solaris 10 06/06 release, much less actual multi-core optimization...
 
Ok maybe this is a dumb question, but what would be difference between writing apps/OSes for dual core as opposed to a true smp system? I didnt think there was any
 
TheDude05 said:
Ok maybe this is a dumb question, but what would be difference between writing apps/OSes for dual core as opposed to a true smp system? I didnt think there was any
What a great question! I hope that StalkerZER0 will enlighten us all with a clearly-written essay about the differences, and help us understand what his expectations are for his OS.
 
Back
Top