Ok, so maybe I'm missing this whole multi-core dilemma. But I don't see that big of a problem. I just think that people are asking the wrong questions. The question isn't how can I write software for mutli-core chips, it should be "what problems are solved best with multiple cores?"
There are categories of "embarrassingly parallel" problems that have been solved for years using multiple cores: video rendering, 3D graphics rendering, etc... In short, anything that does repetitive processing on large datasets.
Now, people are upset, because we're not going to be able to improve the software for the average user with multiple cores, and they are correct if they want word processing and email to get better with multiple cores. The question that we need to be asking, is this: how can embarrassingly parallel problems make user software better?
How can we use multiple streams of video in software? How can 3D rendering improve my software? Or, what sort of very large datasets can I process with multiple cores on the desktop?
The companies that answer those questions (e.g GOOG) are companies that will make a lot of money in the next decade.
At least half of the "dilemma" is pure, unadulterated marketing. In this article, the marketer is Microsoft, which is trying to convince end users that there's some kind of big problem, one which no mere mortal can comprehend, that is somehow preventing our expensive new Vista machines from being any better than the XP boxes they replaced. It certainly has nothing to do with Microsoft's incompetence, nor with their slavish devotion to Hollywood-approved, mind-mangling, box-breaking DRM. And it's certainly not their insistence on foisting incompatible proprietary crap like IE on the industry. No, it must be a Fundamental Problem of Computer Science that is holding us back. Naturally, this problem can only be solved by the big academic brains that work for... Microsoft!
The email example is a dead giveaway... it's laugh-out-loud funny:
"In the future, Mr. Mundie said, parallel software will take on tasks that make the computer increasingly act as an intelligent personal assistant."
Ah, the intelligent personal assistant -- it's the application of the future, and it always will be.
How do we know that intelligent email processing is not being held up by the lack of suitable coding techniques for eight-way parallel processors? Because I have a dual-core processor right now, and it spends the night contemplating its digital navel and counting to 2^64 by fives for fun. If there was something smart it could be doing with my email, why isn't it working on it right now? I am drowning in unused processor cycles.
The Microsoft personal assistant example is just cracking me up. Firstly, Microsoft has been selling the whole 'automated assistant' thing to us for YEARS. Clippy is just one hideous example.
Secondly, automated inbox processing has been around for _years_. My POPFile open source program is now over 5 years old and there are older examples than that (I was doing automated emailing sorting in the late 90s and others before me). So multi-core machines are what's holding this back? What a joke.
Thirdly, it mentions features (looking at who I correspond with) that are already available (see Xobni and others). And automatic response systems are also around to deal with customer service.
Sorry, for the rant put two pages of fluff about multi-core processors with some freak out speculation about email processing that's been available for a long time.
How about talking about something interesting, like parallel aware languages (Occam, erlang, ...)?
The Vista DRM complaints are ridiculous. For one, it's ironic that everyone I know who bitches about it owns an iPod, which is basically the reason we're in this DRM quagmire to begin with. Nobody ever complains about Apple's DRM policies, and if anyone, they're the ones who should be telling the studios "we won't sell your products until you ditch DRM". They have game-changing power there, MS does not, as they're still an also-ran in the media sales industry.
For another, I've never had a problem with any DRM on Vista because I just don't have DRM'ed files, and like 99.9% of America, don't have an HD-DVD or Bluray drive. It's certainly not box-breaking by any sane definition.
And lastly, but most importantly, Microsoft (and any other consumer OS maker) has no choice. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.a... for details. We may all hate DRM, but it isn't Microsoft who is at fault. Not that any of that is at all relevant to the NYT article.
There are categories of "embarrassingly parallel" problems that have been solved for years using multiple cores: video rendering, 3D graphics rendering, etc... In short, anything that does repetitive processing on large datasets.
Now, people are upset, because we're not going to be able to improve the software for the average user with multiple cores, and they are correct if they want word processing and email to get better with multiple cores. The question that we need to be asking, is this: how can embarrassingly parallel problems make user software better?
How can we use multiple streams of video in software? How can 3D rendering improve my software? Or, what sort of very large datasets can I process with multiple cores on the desktop?
The companies that answer those questions (e.g GOOG) are companies that will make a lot of money in the next decade.