WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check – SuperSite Blog « Get iPhone 3GS

WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check – SuperSite Blog « Get iPhone 3GS — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:44:19 GMT

Pingback from WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check – SuperSite Blog « Get iPhone 3GS

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:28:11 GMT

"I guess MS also invented Mutexes as well? Semaphores? Critical Sections?"

Nope. Those already existed for processes. That's why I didn't make those claims.

"And your whole POINT of that nonsense was that MS had a mutli-processor thread scheduler that wasn't "broken"...as if a UNIX based OS has a broken thread scheduler...please!"

Well, seeing how the Unix process scheduler predates threads, yeah. On the other hand, most Unixoid implementations have a thread scheduler added in or have replaced the process scheduler with one that supports threads.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

DarkSages — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:02:11 GMT

I hate to repeat myself but

At least Microsoft Windows 7 supports the same hardware as Vista and in some cases xp. Thats alot of hardware.

Apple 10.6 does not support half of the computers that were sold when 10.5 was released. Huh how many computer types? let's say 20 and that high becuase most of them have the same hardware.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

panache1023 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:00:45 GMT

MikeGalos,

You NEVER gave me a site, you said, "look up..."

I guess MS also invented Mutexes as well? Semaphores? Critical Sections? And your whole POINT of that nonsense was that MS had a mutli-processor thread scheduler that wasn't "broken"...as if a UNIX based OS has a broken thread scheduler...please!

Are you now saying there is no such thing as Windows NT 6.0? Windows NT 6.1?

Oh right, it goes by the public name "Vista" and "Windows 7"...

Are you now denying that Windows Vista is NT 6.0?

Are you denying that Windows 7 is NT 6.1?

Again, this is a perfect case where your hypocrisy is evident, but you spin a small issue to deny your own hypocrisy.

You are so see through.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:55:37 GMT

panache

When you find a product named Windows NT 6.0 or Windows NT 6.1, let us know.

Otherwise spreading ignorance is really not a rare skill here so you won't be missed.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:54:41 GMT

panache

Actually, I gave you a cite with Gordon Letwin's book (He was the architect for OS|2 and one of the earliest Microsoft employees). You could also look at the OS|2 SDK documentation from the time which goes into long explanation of what these new "threads" are.

The problem is that anyone who learned about computers recently doesn't understand that threads are relatively new. You're apparently in that group.

I (having been at IBM and Microsoft during the relevant time) am not.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

panache1023 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:46:27 GMT

MikeGalos,

Here's a comparison for you

Mac OS X 10.5 -> Mac OS X 10.6 - $29

Windows NT 6.0 -> Windows NT 6.1 - ??? how much?

Until MS says $29 or less, it's time to take your beard and shut up.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

panache1023 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:36:13 GMT

obviously you didn't read it mikegalos.

Anyone with any computer background knows that threads and processes are not the same thing.

You still haven't shown me ANYTHING that says Microsoft helped invent (you use the word "create") threads.

You are the one that is wrong.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:53:33 GMT

Lindy

Here's a deal for you. Compare the following:

Leopard-> Snow Leopard - $29

Vista SP1 -> Vista SP2 - $0

Unlike Apple, Microsoft doesn't charge for Service Packs that don't add features.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:49:58 GMT

panache

Threads <> Processes

Even your cite says that.

Sorry. You're just flat out wrong on this.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

TEAMSWITCHER — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:23:22 GMT

Paul is a bad source for Apple Information. He writes to the Windows faithful, and his tone is intentionally spiteful to keep the Fan-Boys happy. It's an old Jedi mind-trick! "This isn't the OS you are looking for. Move along." It only works on the weak-minded.

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

jefflessard — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:05:20 GMT

Paul, you look upset, dosen't serve tour cause to write when you're mad...

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

chuckb84 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:58:42 GMT

Wow, this thread could set a record, either for length or name calling. Well, probably not, but perhaps close.

However, you've gotten off point, and that point is the drivel that Paul calls "commentary". For example, he calls out Apple for supposede hypocrisy

"Hypocrisy around Vista/7 and Leopard/Snow Leopard."

and then gives us this gem,

"For the record, Snow Leopard looks just fine to me. It should, after three years of development on a point release."

In his own words,

"In both cases, Windows 7, and XP, the system was essentially a highly tweaked version of its predecessor. And in both cases, the underlying core of the OS (the kernel plus support code) is largely unchanged from that of its predecessor. So from a technical standpoint, Windows 7 is a minor upgrade."

"Windows 7 is a minor upgrade."

Furthermore, it didn't take 3 years, it took 8, or 9 or 10, depending on how you count, to get from the previous clearly distinct Microsoft OS, XP, to a usable version of Longhorn/Vista/Windows 7. Oh wait, it isn't even released yet, and won't be until after Snow Leopard ships.

Which of the two will be "better"? That's entirely a matter of opinion. I find the RC of Windows 7 "okay", and clearly much improved over XP, but again, after most of a decade, I would sure hope for that!

I don't know why Paul is so rabid and hypocritical on the subject of Apple, and I've previously noted the bizarre congnitive dissonance. He notes the Mac "usage share" of 3.5%---as if Apple is irrelevant----and is then just frothing at the mouth over what was said by this "irrelevant" company. Methinks he doth protest too much. And he doesn't even seem to know it....

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

panache1023 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:24:13 GMT

@Gorath,

You're right. I should have said MS fanatic, not Windows Fanatic...but he is a Windows fanatic too! LOL!

re: WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

gorath — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:07:08 GMT

Lindy, you're not quite 100% correct there, on you rcomment about photoshop.

CS4 on windows at least, does already leverage the (Nvidia) GPU for certain processes, I believe they do this via CUDA.

Although, yes you are correct, DX11 and OpenCL are the first such interfaces built into their relative OS. I don't disagree at all about that.

I was just pointing out that it's been a long time coming, and some first tentative steps were made towards this several years ago.

Of possible interest on the subject is Universal Audio's DSP cards for professional audio processing. Whilst these cards could only actually run UA's own signal processing software, they are in fact, run entirely on what is basically a repurposed graphics card.

As for the OSX upgrade pricing, Apple have done their users proud on that one, and I can only hope that Microsoft offers a similar price for 7 upgraders (although I doubt that they will).

@Panache.

No, you're Wrong.

MikeGalos is not as you said a "Windows Fanatic"

He is simply a microsoft Fanatic ;)