
Apple claims Snow Leopard will be a "breakthrough" in parallel processing tech - timr
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/apple-in-parallel-turning-the-pc-world-upside-down/
======
tx
Why don't they replace Finder with something that works at least on par with
Explorer from Windows 95? Adding "move/cut" feature in 2009 will be a huge
step forward. Or make iPhoto actually usable, so it will see and recognize
JPEGs on your own file system without "importing"? Or how about making
Aperture just slow, as opposed to pathetically slow as it is right now? How
about fixing Spaces to exclude icons of other desktops from Alt-Tab list? How
about making the whole thing to feel like it's been made for non-retards?

Catch up to _freaking Gnome_ first, dammit. Then talk about parallel
computing...

Come on, macwhores, let the downmodding begin.

------
bprater
Parallel programming isn't easy.

I'd like to see more real details before they claim that they've figured it
out. I love Apple, I use a Mac exclusively and I'd love to see my computer
rock, but I'd holding my breath until I see some actual details.

------
urlwolf
I'd like to know more about how they are integating GPUs. I've been looking at
CODA (nVidia library to use the GPU) and it looks mighty interesting.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Take a look at the link I posted below - OpenCL can be accomplished by using a
thread scheduler that's "aware" of asymmetric processing capabilities across
the different cores (and treating the GPU as a usable processing core in non-
OpenGL code). I suspect they'll be using ULE or something similar to it to
pull this off.

------
ajross
Must be in the same sense that Altivec was a "breakthrough" in SIMD
architecture, or the PPC 601 was a "breakthrough" in CPU design. Apple's
history is littered with breakthroughs like this. I'll believe it when I see
it.

As things stand right now, typical SMP scalability benchmarks put OS X solidly
behind even Vista, and trailing Linux and FreeBSD by a mile (I wish I could
find a cite for those -- they were doing the rounds a few months back, I
think).

~~~
j2d2
Considering OSX was originally built from FreeBSD, I suspect it wouldn't be
_that_ difficult to merge some of their work into OSX.

~~~
ajross
This is mostly a fallacy. The FreeBSD code is limited almost exclusively to
userspace stuff. The Darwin kernel descends much more directly from NeXT's
mach-based product. It grew SMP support only very recently, and via a very
different path from that taken in the monolithic BSD community.

Honestly, I don't understand why Apple continues to work on their own kernel.
It has near zero competitive advantage relative to FreeBSD or Linux, and much
cost a fortune to maintain. The real value of their product has always been
above the kernel anyway: I have to believe that switching the kernel out for a
more robust Unix variant can only be a good thing for the Mac.

~~~
wmf
Switching to the FreeBSD kernel seems like it would have been a good idea back
in the Rhapsody days, but Tevanian probably wouldn't allow it. By now Apple
has added so many OS X-specific features like IOKit and DRM that it would be a
lot of work to switch. Costs a fortune to maintain, costs a fortune to switch.

------
dsplaisted
Does anyone have a link to something with more juicy technical details than
are provided in the article?

~~~
bstadil
A little more here
[http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/10/apple_skinny_snow_le...](http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/10/apple_skinny_snow_leopard/)

