You say that "Desktop Operating Systems" likely won't take advantage of multiple cores. I say that is wrong. It may be true if you limit that to windows.

However there are numerous desktop operating systems that do indeed take advantage of multi-core systems, I am typing this reply on one of them now, and many many of my desktop applications and software take advantage of those cores.

You then commented that most of the apps available don't take advantage and the ones that do tend to be server apps.

My desktop video applications take advantage of my cores, all of them, not a server app, just a simple video editor I use to grab and edit files from my camcorder. My image editing apps also take advantage of all my cores. So doesn't my simple little audio multimedia player, yep it uses a database, it isn't a server, but like many people I have a large music collection, and using a database increases the time it takes to manage that collection 4 fold.

My operating system itself, takes advantage of all 4 cores on my system, along with the 4 gigs of memory I have, it does so seamlessly, and many of the things I do regularly are taking advantage of all my cores, it makes a huge difference in the desktop tasks I do.

It is the choices that people make when choosing their operating systems and software that are poor, because most folks don't know how to take advantage of their systems capabilities, and they choose poor software written by lazy and backwards thinking coders.

The only thing not ready for multi-core systems on the desktop is windows and programmers who can't get their heads around the fact that because they choose to use 20th century desktop OS technology to run 21st century hardware they are holding themselves back LOL.

It certainly adds more work to code for more processors, but not doing it is like designing a V8 engine that only has 2 pistons, and six empty cylinders, because it is harder to put all the pistons in the engine block.

That said, I am off to encode the video I shot of my granddaughter this weekend at 4 times the speed of you folks who use the slow and ancient windows movie maker

Personaly I like being able to run a virusscan on the system and stil be able to go online(or play a game) without massive delays.(Something I could'nt on my old single core, and for that I just did'nt scan.)

That it takes time to change software is normal, but its like 64bit is around for ages but it's stil not the standard. Changing to multicore was a big step and is taking off way fast. The software wil follow in time, and yes foremost software developers wil only look to their own program running fast.Correction make it just "running".

personaly, this artikel could be over any new technology.This one just changes the way of programming and that's been the same for so long that changing to something new takes a lot of time.

That statement is just plain wrong and you know it. I think I explained pretty well that the newer CPUs are faster on each core. Call it per-core-per-clock if it makes you feel better, but still no current single core CPU is as fast as the current same size dual core.

Great memory btw. I've got 2 systems that still run great with 2×256mb PC-800 RDRAM (Rambus) although 1 has already needed the motherboard replaced since they're 7 years old or so. We use these systems exclusively for recording from the TV since they're too slow for anything else anymore.

Any custom built PC, and most manufacturers' PCs can run a single core CPU as most motherboard chipsets are backwards compatible. Single core CPUs are still widely available and cheap. You can build a PC for around $300-$400USD if all you want is a cheap single core. And that system may seem fine to you until you put it side by side with a modern Core 2 Duo and see how much faster it is.

The problem is that as system builders we charge about the cost of that system for building a system. No one in their right mind would pay $600-$700 for a single core system when we can sell them a dual core that is twice as fast for $100 more.

Manufacturers will never stick with old technology as it's not profitable. Manufacturers buy parts in bulk and build systems in bulk. As a custom builder, I've never had someone ask for a single core CPU. The demand for old/slow systems isn't enough to make building them worth while for any manufacturer and they'd be paying taxes on the components while they sat in stock awaiting a home.

I mean, you can buy/build whatever you want, but expecting manufacturers to cater to a small minority isn't very realistic.

@Mina, chip makers want to market multicore systems because they bring in more money, but they still sell single-core systems. Intel has its new Atom line which they intend for ultramobile PCs, but the top end of the line can be used in desktop PCs.

It's a lot like SUVs vs. cars. Some people really need SUVs, but not as many as have bought them. Some people really need multicore systems, but a lot more are buying them because the ads make them sound great.

About the only good thing coming out of this happening, is that custom-built PCs/Laptops might become more frequent, as some will not want more than one core and some PCs/Laptops come out with ridiculous numbers for RAM and hard disk space.

EG: Your view is correct when comparing a Pentium D 2.66GHz CPU with a Pentium 4 2.66GHz CPU, but your view is completely wrong when comparing a Pentium 4 2.66GHz CPU with a E8400 2.66GHz CPU. Not only will the E8400 perform single core tasks faster, but it will also run cooler and use less electricity.

Also, who hasn't been working on a computer or playing a game when the AV scan kicks in? Multi-core CPUs will use the available cores to run simultaneous apps for multi-tasking. A single core will simply slow down as it tries to do everything on the only core available. Dave Methvin can say it's only this amount and only that amount all he wants, but it's still slowing down the single core more than the multi-core.

Thus, in every instance a multi-core CPU is faster than a single core CPU today. The only real question is whether you multi-task enough and/or use apps that will benefit from a quad core over a dual core.