On 9 Aug 2006 at 17:34, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 09 Aug 2006, at 4:38 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 9 Aug 2006 at 5:13, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > > > [] > > > >> . . . It would be > >> foolish for Windows developpers not to begin writing apps that take > >> advantage of both cores. (In fact, I read that most Photoshop > >> filters are already multi-threaded, even on Windows... ) > > > > What are you talking about? Multithreading does not guarantee that > > the OS will divide up the processes and/or threads and hand them off > > to different processor/cores. > > No, but I have read that Photoshop filters running under XP Pro are, > in fact, multithreaded for multiple processors/cores.
Those are two independent issues. Which is my point -- if multithreading guaranteed that the multiple processors would be used, then all Win32 software would utilize multiple processors. That's obviously not the case, so it's clear that multithreading is not what matters, but application design that exploits multiple processors. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
