<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gizmodo Australia &#187; parallel processing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/parallel-processing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au</link>
	<description>the Gadget Guide &#124; Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:41:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Giz Explains: Why Does the New MacBook Pro Have Two Graphics Cards?</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/giz_explains_why_does_the_new_macbook_pro_have_two_graphics_cards-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/giz_explains_why_does_the_new_macbook_pro_have_two_graphics_cards-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Regulars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[giz explains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[graphics cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[macbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nvidia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parallel processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/giz_explains_why_does_the_new_macbook_pro_have_two_graphics_cards-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The biggest update to the new MacBooks&#8212;on the inside anyway&#8212;is their graphical muscle, which has been hooked up with some Barry Bonds-level steroids. Apple ditched Intel&#8217;s crummy integrated graphics and chipset (basically the traffic controller between the processor and everything else) entirely, opting for a new one from Nvidia that combines the chipset and a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/twombp.jpg" style="display:block;float:none;" />The biggest update to <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/macbook_2008_announcement_roundup-2.html">the new MacBooks</a>&mdash;on the inside anyway&mdash;is their graphical muscle, which has been hooked up with some Barry Bonds-level steroids. Apple ditched Intel&#8217;s crummy integrated graphics and chipset (basically the traffic controller between the processor and everything else) entirely, opting <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/apple_diamond.html">for a new one from Nvidia</a> that combines the chipset and a GPU on a single chip&mdash;the GeForce 9400M. <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/hands_on_with_macbook_pro_2008-2.html">The MacBook Pro</a>, being more Pro-erer than <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/hands_on_the_new_silver_macbook-2.html">the MacBook</a>, now rocks two graphics cards&mdash;the integrated 9400M and a separate, beefier GeForce 9600M GT. If that swirl of numbers, letters and BS is confusing, here&#8217;s what&#8217;s up.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: giz explains, apple, feature, geforce 9400m, geforce 9600m gt, intel, macbook, macbook 2008, macbook pro, macbook pro 2008, new macbook, new macbook pro, nvidia, top --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/giz_explains_why_does_the_new_macbook_pro_have_two_graphics_cards-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Windows 7 Getting (Kinda) Optimised for Parallel Processing</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/windows_7_getting_kinda_optimised_for_parallel_processing-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/windows_7_getting_kinda_optimised_for_parallel_processing-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parallel processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[windows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[windows 7]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/windows_7_getting_kinda_optimised_for_parallel_processing-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Besides looking a lot like Vista&#8212;and we mean a lot&#8212;Microsoft has said Windows 7 uses a lot of the same foundation, too, to keep upgrade migraines to a minimum. The problem is that its core ain&#8217;t so suited to parallel computing, one of rival Snow Leopard&#8217;s few headline features. So they&#8217;re actually implementing some deep-level [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/09/win777.jpg" style="display:block;float:none;" />Besides looking <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/windows_7_milestone_3_previewed_just_like_vista_but_with_office_2007_ribbon_ui-2.html">a lot like Vista</a>&mdash;and <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/windows_7_does_look_just_like_vista-2.html">we mean a <em>lot</em></a>&mdash;Microsoft has said Windows 7 uses <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/05/windows_7_will_have_same_foundation_as_vista_be_mostly_secret_until_launch-2.html">a lot of the same foundation</a>, too, to keep upgrade migraines to a minimum. The problem is that its core ain&#8217;t so suited to <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/06/giz_explains_mac_os_106_snow_leopard_parallel_processing_and_gpu_computing-2.html">parallel computing</a>, one of rival Snow Leopard&#8217;s few headline features. So they&#8217;re <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612">actually implementing some deep-level tweaks</a> to bring it up to speed and make it more parallel processing friendly.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: windows 7, 64-bit, microsoft, parallel, parallel computing, parallel processing, windows --><br />
<span id="more-308462"></span>
<p>It&#8217;s actually a significant process, since as Craig Mundie, Microsoft&#8217;s Chief Research and Strategy Officer, admits, &#8220;Win32 was never designed for highly concurrent, asynchronous processing&#8221; and &#8220;parallelism requires adjustments at every level of the stack.&#8221; The first steps toward the larger project of re-arranging tasks and runtimes in different layers to take advantage of multiple-core <em>will</em> happen in Windows 7 though, such as an updated scheduler. There will be other adjustments along these lines as well, though we probably won&#8217;t know everything <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/want_windows_7_super_early_get_your_conference_pants_on-2.html">until October</a>.</p>
<p>So while it&#8217;s unlikely that Windows 7 be as deeply in tune with parallel processing as Snow Leopard looks to be, it&#8217;ll definitely be able to use a SWAT team of cores better than your Vista box will, and set the stage for Windows 8 to have a solid parallel processing foundation. [<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612">ZD Net</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/windows_7_getting_kinda_optimised_for_parallel_processing-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
