Linked by sawboss on Sat 29th Jan 2011 00:15 UTC
Permalink for comment 460124
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Just curious, not trying to flame.
As for many-core Atoms, I say bring it on, if it's possible for Intel to do so in the same size package anyway. The Atom is already quite small for its relative power and features.
Maybe he is concluding that based on the R&D work done on those three operating systems and the request for a stripped down simplified CPU made up of many cores is an indication of the need to have an OS built from the ground up to address such a system rather than strapping on and bandaging up an existing one.
I'd love to see a new operating system to gradually replace what exists today but as Microsoft management have noted many times - legacy code is an asset for Microsoft; they aren't going to throw away an asset even if it means that things aren't as highly optimised as they would be if they started with a clean slate.