Re: Why ?
Faster speed with lower power requirements.
3 posts • joined 25 Oct 2013
O/S2 is a very bad comparison. O/S2 didn't have a chance in the market place because MS aka Bill Gates was running a proven (as in court of law) illegal monopoly which effectively barred O/S2 from the marketplace. Same as what happened with DR-DOS, and other O/S type software as well as networking software, office apps and browsers. It would have been very interesting had there been fair competition as there were far superior products available but Gates used his monopoly to ensure they never could reach the market.
MS was developing O/S2 with IBM as a replacement for Windows except that MS wanted O/S2 to fail so as not to challenge its monopoly. O/S2 was a side issue for Gates as he kept MS focused, quietly, on Windows knowing full-well that he would not allow O/S2 to compete and his monoply not be threatened by a far superior product -- and O/S2, despite all Gates hard work to the contrary, was a far superior product to Windows.
The only reason we're being pushed onto parallel is thermodynamics and the heat that prevented us from going faster, ergo multi-core ergo creating the need to force parallel on us. Along with, of course, some execellent marketing. (Remember turbo-mode where cores are shut down so a single core can go faster is now touted as a feature.)
The difficulty with parallel is not in designing parallel; it's simply that the problems typical people use computers for are linear and iterative thereby not lending themselves to parallel solutions. If a problem is analysed objectively and the solution is based upon the analysis it's not really complicated to implement regardless of whether it's uses parallelism or is linear. When the solution is linear and we try to implement it as parallel it gets ugly and way too complicated.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020