I thought the headline
Apple Steals Microsoft's Multicore Thunder with Grand Central (by
Randall C. Kennedy) sounded like an interesting read. Quite honestly, I
didn't know that Microsoft had any thunder to steal.
I haven't seen many articles talking about how Windows 7 was going
to be a multicore wonder OS. Last year, it didn't show up as a big
highlight on Paul Thurrott's website or even in the list from Microsoft
developer blog. I know, because I wrote about this last
year.
So where is this thunder hiding that the headline is referring
to?
After reading the article, all I can say is, "Randall, did you just
wake up after being drunk for several years, because you aren't talking
any sense." This has to be one of the most out-of-touch stories I've
read lately.
I'm not of fan of Windows XP or Vista, but I can't believe that you
would need a 20-30 core processor for Vista to equal XP. I've used
both, and there just isn't that much difference. In fact, on a fast
machine Vista is very usable. Maybe Randall hasn't tried running Vista
on a quad-core Xeon computer with 6 GB of RAM (you could, if you
had a Mac Pro, which also comes
in 8-core versions), but it runs fine well before hitting the claimed
20 core beast Randall thinks it needs.
If I can't trust a Windows stooge to give me the straight scoop on
Vista, I sure have a problem listening to him rant about how Apple does
things. First off, the Mac OS and multiple processors go way back. The
Mac clone builder DayStar was
building dual- and quad-processor computers that ran the Mac OS way
back in 1996. That predates even a dinosaur operating system like XP by
five years.
I don't think Apple, which licensed the technology from DayStar, did
much to fine tune the Mac OS to support multiple processors back in
1996, but they sure haven't been waiting until this year to catch up.
The announcement from last year regarding Grand
Central is just the progression of many years of working with
multiple processor computers. (The modern era of multiprocessor Macs
begins with the dual CPU "Mystic" Power Mac G4 in
July 2000) Multiple processors have always given Mac OS X a boost
in speed.
While Randall is right that Microsoft baked better multicore support
into Vista three years ago, he is clueless on how long Apple has
gradually and continually been adding multicore support to Mac
OS X. Randall, instead of complaining about Apple's better skills
at marketing, you should have done a better job comparing current
multicore support between the two operating system families.
The issue for both Apple and Microsoft is how to deal with more than
four cores. Code hasn't been optimized for that many, except for
specialized hardware. Both Apple and Microsoft are in the same boat of
getting developers to work with a growing number of processors crammed
in to future computers.
There is no doubt that they are going to have similar sounding
technologies. Are they going to "borrow" ideas from each other to
further development? Probably, but common problems often lead to
similar solutions.
Since I haven't heard much thunder from Microsoft about multicore
support, all I can say is that Grand Central and OpenCL sound like
incredible improvements. They should improve things not only for the
next round of hardware, but also make major improvements for the Intel
Macs I currently own. These technologies are not only about improving
Apple software; Apple is giving these tools to developers to build
better applications.
The bottom line is that no matter how good the headline reads, the
next time a nutty yap tries telling you that Macs are only doing
something to steal Microsoft's thunder, just smile and walk away as
quickly as possible. 
