News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel Unleashes Its First 8-Core Desktop Processor. Parent comment

Re:Intel Unleashes Its First 8-Core Desktop Processor by coldtea on Saturday August 30, 2014 @08:03AM (#8246220)
>I think it's going to start becoming reasonable to package up applications in VMs and distributing the VMs "appliances" to run instead of installing software directly in the OS.

Full VMs for regular desktop apps? I don't think so. We already have sandboxes.

And in any case, this wont happen in the life span of this professor being relevant (say, 5 years), so, it can't be an issue that necessitates 64 bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Unleashes Its First 8-Core Desktop Processor by mtrimpe on Saturday August 30, 2014 @09:50AM (#8246425)
Isn't the OP referring to what happens after the 'lifespan' of this processor?

I'm still happily running a Mac Pro I maxxed out in 2008 and expect a couple more years out of it at the least.

It would be nice if this kind of machine could last a similar 6-8 years instead of entering (and I think that was the OPs point) 'engineered' obsolescence in 4/5 years?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Unleashes Its First 8-Core Desktop Processor by coldtea on Saturday August 30, 2014 @11:00AM (#8246599)
>Isn't the OP referring to what happens after the 'lifespan' of this processor?

No, he's reffering to what will happen in "2 years". I quote: "But in two years, swapping in 128gb would be the no-brainer upgrade to this thing. That this is being ruled out ahead of time is not a good thing".

And there's just no way that normal users will run their desktop apps in VMs in two years -- which is what was said a as a justification for needing > 64gb.

[ Parent | on HN ]