windowsvienna.com | Windows of Technology

Jun/08

24

Windows 7 Takes More Advantage Of Multi-Core CPUs

Intel QuadCore CPU  Microsoft is making efforts with Windows 7 to have it accommodate parallel processing better and take more advantage of today’s multi-core CPUs in order to gain more performance for the operating system and its applications. However, it will take future versions of Windows to take full advantage of parallel processing, when the architecture of Windows will be based on managed code.

The problem with dual core, triple core, quad core and other multi-core processors is that software can rarely take full advantage of them. Because of the way software is being designed today, there are very good chances that when one core runs a certain part of the software’s code, and another core runs a different part, if the two parts are dependent on each other, one of them will fail if the other one doesn’t finish on time.

Intel has strongly encouraged developers to target multi-core CPUs with their code, and Microsoft is taking a step towards that by changing some of the design of Windows 7 to accommodate and take advantage of all the available cores. Although the basis for Windows 7 will remain the same as for Windows Vista, a series of tweaks will help Windows 7 take advantage of the newer CPUs.

For future versions of Windows, Microsoft plans to replace the Windows core with fully managed code, that is designed specifically with parallel processing in mind.

 

 

No tags

48 comments

  • Lowey · March 11, 2013 at 11:00 am

    I’m disappointed to hear that my quadcore packs more juice than software today can squeeze out of, but now this might be reason enough for me to upgrade to Vienna.

  • Steven · March 11, 2013 at 11:01 am

    I’m disappointed aswell, Vista and XP can do better in pulling out the full performence of a processor. I had a zd8000 a few years ago with Windows XP MCE 2005 on it. i decided to beta test Windows Vista on it. When I did, Vista took its Hyperthreading processor and took more advantage of it than XP did. now that i’m running a PC with a dual-cure processor, Vista is not doing as well with it and this new notebook PC is like 10 times better than that one. I also ran Vista with a single-core processor laptop from back in the day and vista used its processor resources better than my dual-core processor tc4400. how can vista run better on a zd8000 and a armada e700 than on a modern day PC? can someone answer that for me. of course when i ran vista on the armada e700 it was running on minimum specs, except for that the hard drive and the video card was upgraded, plus it was using an external wireless card.

  • Adam · March 11, 2013 at 11:01 am

    Alot of that has to do with the fact that alot ot the retail Vista’s out there(i mean like from Hp Dell and so forth) Are pack full of so much junk it’s best to wipe everything and reinstall from scratch… I thought the same thing on my New Compaq laptop untill i did a freash install of vista and found out that it it like 10 times faster that what Hp put on it

  • Lory · March 11, 2013 at 11:01 am

    and HP is especially well known for the useless software that they shove down your throat with any desktop or laptop… when I got my tx2500z tablet pc, I asked geeksquad to clear all that useless software, and it was so much better in terms of performance…

  • The "Dude" of windows · March 11, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Nice.

  • maxbalboa · March 11, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Good news.

  • Saloums7 · March 11, 2013 at 11:02 am

    so it’s not gonna be like Vista?

  • HarHarHar · March 11, 2013 at 11:03 am

    having useless squad, i mean geek squad, do anything to a computer is just as good as walking down the street and handing someone money and saying, hey take this for no reason. save money and do it yourself rather than giving money to people that have, at most, A certification and couldn’t tell you what Linux was if their lives depended on it.

  • Vipul_00001 · March 11, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Excellent
    very very Good

    My.No.09909100001
    Vipul Parmar
    Morbi (INDIA )

  • parallel · March 11, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Still need to wait further windows to really utilize parallel processing.

  • TDHeller · March 11, 2013 at 11:04 am

    This release could be done sooo much faster if MS wasn’t so worried about future revenue stream and endless licensing.

    I have been using XP-64 Pro for about a year now Quad core Intel Q6600, ASUS MB, 1GB Asus Video, 8GB Ram etc. etc. and it is still a dog except for select apps. (games primarilly).

    Drivers remain unavailable for 64-bit (Canon printers especially) and software is abysmal. Try to find a good 64-bit browser! Yahoo is going broke, Google doesn’t support it and MS is screwing you down with new windowed ad pages! They really need the money!

    Too bad Linux is such a geek portal but it looks like the only hope for the future of 64-bit OS’s.

  • .NetRolller 3D · March 11, 2013 at 11:04 am

    I can actually confirm that Windows 7 includes parallel-procesing enhancements – they break Prime95′s torture test! Apparently Windows 7 tries to “break up” CPU utilization between the different cores (I have a Q6600), and this interferes with Prime95′s ability to explicitly target each core with its own thread. As a result, the load on the different cores is uneven. Hope that they will short this out in the final version.

  • Parallel · March 11, 2013 at 11:04 am

    How about MACH ? We need a true parallel O.S. and parallel language with parallel algorithm.

  • Alastor Moody · March 11, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Windows 7 works well on a Virtual machine with 1 GB of RAM. So ya… it is doing good so far. I also feel they need to change the GUI a bit, to much Vista.

  • Pilot · March 11, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Yes, is vista with more marketing pack…

  • Alberto, forced · March 11, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Great! annother Inoperating (and expensive) System, i had vista, but my linux erase the partition intentionally… I enjoyed that. The best products that microsoft did are: w2000 (wormable) and xp. Please, re read the source code of this, or copy a MACH kernel, or work!

  • p[appu · March 11, 2013 at 11:06 am

    give me my windows

  • Tim Heller · March 11, 2013 at 11:06 am

    I am disappointed in this costly turn of events.
    Yet another OS needed to take full advantage of Quad Core technology I have been using for over a year.

    Make no mistake Vista-64 has been a real improvement over XP-64.
    Better driver support and more seamless interface with better large memory support.
    But I feel sort of used; needing to purchase “7″ to take full advantage of Quad-Core technology that has been available for some time now. Why not “patch” better Quad-Core support to Vista 64 or offer existing users a discounted upgrade for loyalty sake. I’m just saying…

    It’s the economy ******! That really frosts me.

  • Parallel · March 11, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Where can I learn more about Linux development in Parallel ? Anybody heard Linux-128 ?

  • Michel.K · March 11, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Tim Heller, have you ever though of why it is like that?

    Vista 32/64 was the best for quad core support at the time you bought it. Okay? So just because they release a new OS that’s improved (all OS’es are improved when they are newer). Why the heck would they give you any discount or so for a new OS?
    With time grows technology, and so it gets better. That’s pretty crystal clear to me.

    Just because there will be a new and better quad core CPU out there for example they will not give you it for free or give it for a lower cost everytime they release a new one, that would be stupid, lol.

    You can’t just throw away stuf for free when someone has taken their time to make something better of something that was already good you know. This is the circle of life as you will see when you grow up and get your own place to live at etc.

  • Jhon · March 11, 2013 at 11:07 am

    I hope that with vienna have success not like vista

  • Joey · March 11, 2013 at 11:07 am

    all i can say is that windows xp is sucks and vista rocks everyone’s asses… or if still not enough, then windows 7 will take over the reign! =D

  • Caliga · March 11, 2013 at 11:07 am

    My system:
    AMD Phenom x4 @ 2.6Ghz
    4 GB of DDR2 1066Mhz RAM
    Radeon 3870 1024MB GPU
    1TB Maxtor HDD @ 7200rpm

    I have been a windows user for years, but unlike most people have also extensively used Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, DSL). I am currently using Windows 7 build 7000, and the performance increase over Vista is very noticable. Evertything runs smoothly, infact I would go as far as saying its faster than both XP and Vista – and every single Linux distro I have tried out so far. One thing i find annoying is how (the majority of) the linux community seems to shun any new M$ release – yes it costs money, yes its from one of the worlds most capatalist companies, BUT its undeniable that they make amazing products. Yes vista was a flop as far as I’m concerned, apart from the GUI. Windows 7 makes up for this – It takes the beauty of Vista, the stability of XP and provides something I personally find a joy to work with. As a developer I will continue dual booting my Linux distros and my Windows, but its safe to say I know what i will be using for the main part of my time :] Hats off to M$

  • Paul Doyle · March 11, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Here’s what I posted to Ed Bott of ZDNet, and it still holds:

    “My Pentium 4 system runs and feels a bit snappier on Windows 7 than my 2.66 GHz Core2Duo with 2GB RAM ever did running Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and it feels about as snappy as my Lenovo T61 ThinkPad 2.0 GHz Core2 running XP Pro SP3.

    But then, to be fair, my P4-based system is pretty much loaded and maxed out.

    Specs: Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz Northwood 800 MHz FSB, HTT (Hyperthreading, and yes, HTT does indeed help multitask Win7 and big apps run and switch very smoothly).

    4 GB PC3200 DDR dual channel RAM, (3.3 GB usable/visible to the OS

  • yusef · March 11, 2013 at 11:08 am

    WINDOWS 7 INTEL CORE i7 = COOL

  • yusef · March 11, 2013 at 11:09 am

    intel core i7 965 CPU
    6GB corsair dominator (3x2GB)
    GiGabyte ex58 extreme M/B
    2 ati radeon hd 4870 x2 GPU crossfire
    4TB samsung spinpoint (4x1TB) in Raid0

  • EWM · March 11, 2013 at 11:10 am

    hmmm… “managed” Core (kernel? – GUI? what is a OS core?)… well I imagine that will take “better” advantage of more CPU’s… but will the end result be better performance or more features utilizing those cores on the CPUs… or will it just be that all of my cores are now employed to run the less efficient “managed” version of the OS Core.

  • m.pradeep · March 11, 2013 at 11:10 am

    hi this is pradeep from india
    i need a help regarding with windows 7
    how to connect internet in windows 7?
    how to find network animation details?
    please reply me if you know how to connect
    mail me at
    pradeepgani2007@hotmail.com

  • ziklife · March 11, 2013 at 11:10 am

    indows 7 is good..All the year is fill with 7 > Core i7, windows 7, and much waiting

  • Alikanbar · March 11, 2013 at 11:10 am

    hi to all
    i need a help (waht is windows seven , oblectives of windows seven,

  • TIm Heller · March 11, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Please unsubscribe me from this annoying list.
    Thank You

  • Theresa · March 11, 2013 at 11:11 am

    I found Windows xp 64 on my dual core AMD to be quite quick and stable. I had a canon printer and a scanner for which there were no drivers though. Driver support was abysmal. I just installed Windows 7 on a newly built computer and it has many bugs. It wouldn’t sleep with a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse. Its windows change size or maximize with just a quick move of the mouse over them. It also hangs at times and every boot up is an adventure to see if it will require another windows check on whether its legitimate. I think it is buggier than pre-release Win 2000 and XP. I think they sped up the interface but from what I’ve read it doesn’t benchmark much better (if at all) better than Vista (which I never used. There is a lot of marketing hype right now.

    Theresa

  • TDHeller · March 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

    HELP! How do I get off of this idiot mailing list.
    Youi have apparently lost all of my user records except the one that generates this ridiculous list.
    HELP ME ESCAPE FROM MICROSOFT HELL PLEASE!

  • Anomadeus · March 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

    I think those emails are going to the perfect place. =)

    “HELP! How do I get off of this idiot mailing list.
    Youi have apparently lost all of my user records except the one that generates this ridiculous list.
    HELP ME ESCAPE FROM MICROSOFT HELL PLEASE!”

  • Cecil · March 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

    My Mac Snow Leopard takes full advantage of my 16 cores out the box. I edit in Mac and my partner edits in Windows 7.

    Windows 7 uses 1 processor while 15 are left free. Snow Leopard uses all 16.

    I can convert 16 videos at once with my raid setup, DVD quality and it takes 3 hours. I can go shopping and have 16 bits of work finished when I get back.

    My partner can get 3 to run at a time on Windows 7 before it wont take anymore and it takes 3 and a half hours before the 3 are done.

    Microsoft should REALLY have taken the time to get up to speed with technology.

    Unfortunately Windows 7′s use of processors is 4 years behind that of the Apple OS.

    All the money in the world could not build a Windows Machine that can do what the Mac OS does because Windows does not know what to do with it.

    Anyone using Windows should stick with Single core computer. Anything else just goes to waste.
    by .NetRolller 3D on Saturday, December 5th 2009 at 04:52 PM
    Cecil: you are either running the wrong apps on the Windows machine, or (if Windows doesn’t even see the extra cores), Windows may be running with the wrong HAL (halacpi insstead of halmacpi). Windows 7 happily handles all cores on my quad-core system, with all cores actually doing work.

  • Cecil · March 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Ye, the software is written for 1 core. My partner is running 64 Bit Windows 7 and the application is 32bit.

    However in Mac OS, if software does not use the cores correctly, Mac OS handles the processing to force it to use more. It creates a virtual sum of processors, where I can see 1 CPU running at 1400%. This is the OS thinking for software.

    Windows doesn’t handle that. Microsoft mentality to make software engineers write a certain way. This is crazy. If Mohammad won’t come to the mountain, bring the mountain to Mohammad.

    I was an avid Windows user for years but my work outgrew Windows. Over the last 3 years almost every piece of software I need is available on Mac or has a version for Mac. It’s horrible learning new software, but I would never go back. Vista was the nail on the Microsoft coffin. :-)

  • Don · March 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Very good article.
    After reading the replies I can understand peoples concern as well as the attitude.
    When I built my Rig back in late 2007 I decided to go with Vista because I wanted the latest and greatest.
    I had 2 nVidia 8800 Ultras in SLI and 4 Gig of Corsair Ram, allong with the latest Intel Quad Core Processor.

    Vista was such a pain to install because first off, it couldn’t recognize more than 2 Gig of Ram as well as the many tweaks I had to make to the bios to get Vista to run.
    Once I got it to run, it was a mess.
    With the hardware I had running, Vista made such a mess of it all many older systems with single video cards ran better than my system.
    After spending $6k on my system, I was a little aggravated to say the least.
    Did I spend extra on a copy of XP? No…
    I should have because Vista has been my Windows ME nightmare.

    I just ordered Win7 after reading enough to convince me it really is better than Vista and finally surpasses XP in performance.
    At least I hope it is, maybe I’ll be able to finally get the performance I should have in the system I built…

    As for people being goofs for wanting a discount to upgrade form Vista, it really should be.
    Most OS’s are upgraded in a 3 Year interval.
    The interval from Vista to Win7 is less than 2 Years so people like me are very disappointed.
    If you purchased a pre built PC frome someone like Dell, Gateway, Sony etc, you didn’t have to incur the $300 pricetag that home builders like I had to spend.

    After only 1.5 Years and 1.5 Years of headaches, we’re now forced to spend another $300 for what we consider nothing more than Vista service pack 3.

    I predict that like Win Millennium, 2000, there will be class action lawsuits over this because Vista was that bad.
    by Don on Saturday, February 27th 2010 at 05:44 PM
    Very good article.
    After reading the replies I can understand peoples concern as well as the attitude.
    When I built my Rig back in late 2007 I decided to go with Vista because I wanted the latest and greatest.
    I had 2 nVidia 8800 Ultras in SLI and 4 Gig of Corsair Ram, allong with the latest Intel Quad Core Processor.

    Vista was such a pain to install because first off, it couldn’t recognize more than 2 Gig of Ram as well as the many tweaks I had to make to the bios to get Vista to run.
    Once I got it to run, it was a mess.
    With the hardware I had running, Vista made such a mess of it all many older systems with single video cards ran better than my system.
    After spending $6k on my system, I was a little aggravated to say the least.
    Did I spend extra on a copy of XP? No…
    I should have because Vista has been my Windows ME nightmare.

    I just ordered Win7 after reading enough to convince me it really is better than Vista and finally surpasses XP in performance.
    At least I hope it is, maybe I’ll be able to finally get the performance I should have in the system I built…

    As for people being goofs for wanting a discount to upgrade form Vista, it really should be.
    Most OS’s are upgraded in a 3 Year interval.
    The interval from Vista to Win7 is less than 2 Years so people like me are very disappointed.
    If you purchased a pre built PC frome someone like Dell, Gateway, Sony etc, you didn’t have to incur the $300 pricetag that home builders like I had to spend.

    After only 1.5 Years and 1.5 Years of headaches, we’re now forced to spend another $300 for what we consider nothing more than Vista service pack 3.

    I predict that like Win Millennium, 2000, there will be class action lawsuits over this because Vista was that bad.

  • Tim Heller · March 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

    HOW DO I GET OFF THIS INSIPID

  • mike · March 11, 2013 at 11:14 am

    I don’t understand why MS doesn’t just virtualize the multi-cores to appear as one physical processor..? Sounds like the simplest and most compatible method to have the OS take care of. Or better yet, have the motherboards BIOS take on that task.

  • .NetRolller 3D · March 11, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Mike, remember the old adage: a mother needs 9 months to give birth to a baby, but you can’t combine 9 mothers to produce a baby in one month.

  • TDHeller · March 11, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Get me OFF this insipid list!!

    I cant possibly convey how little I care about this nonsense!

    STOP IT!!

  • no · March 11, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Sorry TDHeller, you’re doomed to be on “this list” forever

  • JAGPAL SIDHU · March 11, 2013 at 11:15 am

    AMD Athlon(tm)x2 7750 Dual-Core 2.70GHz
    ASUS M3A78-EM
    Kingston DDR2 RAM 6.00 GB
    XFX ATi Radeon HD 5770 DDR5 1GB
    1TB Samsung HDD 7200RPM
    WINDOWS 7 ULTIMATE (It’s AWESOME FOR ME)
    THANK YOU MICROSOFT.

  • Phillip Roy Wager · March 12, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Look people, BeOS could take advantage of up to 16 cores(processors) way back in 1998. No matter what Microsoft does or says, BeOS kicked Windows ASS a long time ago. I only wish that Be Inc. ran a good business back then.

  • freesoft32 · March 12, 2013 at 10:45 am

    thanks you very much!!!!
    - tricks and tips for win7 and vista here: http://win7-vista.blogspot.com
    - auto car, new car, car review here: http://euro-autocar.blogspot.com
    - download free software, music, movies etc..here: http://freesoft32.net

  • freesoft32 · March 12, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Sorry, the above links have malicious content and are not trustworthy!

  • kvvn · March 12, 2013 at 10:46 am

    No matter what you do – Windows 7 is a lot better than Vista. Vista Sucked on my laptop/desktop likewise. Ever Since I enabled the multi core using Msconfig. My Laptop has been aweesomely fast. Esp Win 7 takes the advantage of that. BTw, BeOS was one hell of an OS. Sadly, they did not last long !!!

  • iphoness · March 12, 2013 at 10:46 am

    Nice post.thanks looking forward for more post from u.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me