XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   XPost: alt.os.linux.redhat   
   From: znu@fake.invalid   
      
   In article ,   
    Randy Howard  wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > znu@fake.invalid says...   
   > > Dual core will matter to the markets targeted by Xserves and G5 towers.   
   >   
   > People with a dual-processor box like a G5 tower don't need dual core   
   > at all, unless you think that multithreaded apps on the G5 are so   
   > slow they need 4 CPUs to get there.   
      
   A lot of the tasks for which people buy G5 towers still push the   
   capabilities of today's hardware quite a bit. HD video editing, for   
   instance. Of course, Apple is trying to unload some of this sort of   
   thing on the GPU, but fast processors are still a must. And four fast   
   processors (effectively) are better than two.   
      
   > Sure, nice to have, not that big of a deal.  More important in the   
   > single-socket desktop and notebook market, along with blades and   
   > rack-mount low profile servers.   
      
   I'm not thinking that the Mac mini's target market needs a dual-core   
   processor right now. They might be nice in high-end PowerBooks, for   
   people who need mobile media workstations.   
      
   > > As far as the battle for consumer processors, that's already over, and   
   > > everybody won.   
   >   
   > I understand what you're getting at, but I have a sneaky suspicion   
   > that Intel and AMD have a different opinion on the matter.   
      
   Well, they don't like this idea, because it's going to result in   
   increasingly long upgrade cycles, which means much lower sales volume.   
   But I'm not sure they'll be able to do much about it.   
      
   > > In the consumer market, everything currently on the market is more than   
   > > fast enough,   
   >   
   > Hence Longhorn.  That'll solve that problem.  :-)   
   >   
   > You do realize that Windows is the primary delivery vehicle for   
   > technologies to help spurn new hardware sales (read as: "slow   
   > the damn thing down so people will upgrade"), right?   
      
   It's pretty funny that Apple, which actually has a very direct interest   
   in getting people to upgrade their hardware, actually manages to make   
   the OS *faster* on the same hardware with every release. Some bean   
   counter should really go yell and the engineers to cut that out .   
      
   It's true, Longhorn will probably drive some upgrades. But if consumers   
   and business users start only upgrading for new Windows releases, and if   
   Windows releases are going to come as far apart as XP and Longhorn from   
   now on, that's going to be a major slowdown. We could see people only   
   buying new machines every 6-8 years.   
      
   > > at least for everyone except high-end gamers (and they should really   
   > > care more about what's happening with GPUs than CPUs).   
   >   
   > Probably, but gamers will always be out there with their hair on   
   > fire, liquid cooled stuff, neon-colored fans and black lights,   
   > and more pimples than a 16-yr-old Krimpy Kreme taste tester.   
      
   --   
   "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply   
   ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."   
      -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)