On 9 Aug 2006 at 17:44, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 09 Aug 2006, at 5:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > 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. > > On sites like Ars Technica, "multithreaded" has become shorthand for > "optimized for multiple processors." I realize that's not what the > term originally meant, but that's how people are using it now.
Well, they may be doing that, but it's idiotic to take a programming term and redefine it to mean something else entirely that is so closely related. It's also odd given that it is only in recent memory that Mac users got full multithreaded preemptive multitasking (with OS X), something that Windows users have had for twice as long. Whatever *they* do, I would advise you *not* to use "multithreaded" as a synonym for "optimized for multiple processors" as in most forums, that will get you a reputation as an idiot. -- 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
