-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 10 July 2008 11:01:31 pm Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just speculation.
>
> I would take the article seriously.
>
> > Just open up your mind to this perspective: It's a big risk for the CPU
> > vendors to haven taken the direction to multi-core.
>
> *Precisely*.  It also stands in stark contrast to the last 50 or so years
> of CPU development, which focused around making single-threaded code
> faster.  And, I note, it's not just one CPU manufacturer who has done this
> (which could be chalked up to stupid management or stupid engineers)- but
> *every* CPU manufacturer.  And what do they get out of it, other than
> ticked off software developers grumbling about having to switch to
> multithreaded code?

I think we can all agree that more computing units being used in parallel is 
going to be the future.  The main point here is that a shared-memory 
architecture is not necessarily (and in my opinion doubtful) the approach 
that will be taken for large numbers of CPUs.

Peng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFId3XafIRcEFL/JewRAqWsAJQIUFRO7aMoyVOZGzmKbXITloOwAKCm+QZd
WR7HXzzrzuNL8q3q3HuztQ==
=2IcK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----