Isn't this old news? I thought everyone knew that we were moving towards more processors instead of faster processors. One quote that I didn't particularly l

Isn't this old news? I thought everyone knew that we were moving towards more processors instead of faster processors. One quote that I didn't particularly like, "You can imagine a scenario where people stop buying laptops and PCs because we can't figure this out." Yeah, I'm sure that is going to happen. All it means is that new ambitious groups of people have a good chance of entering the market against entrenched competitors who do not go with a parallel design. They also mention, "...operating systems like Windows XP and Vista already work with the multicore chips out now," as if Windows is the only one that does. Linux and BSD systems (among others) have been working with multiple processors since long before Windows even considered the idea of having multiple users. Overall, I wasn't impressed with the reporting. I think it's partly uninformed (failing to recognize the history and present-day of SMP systems and programs), sensationalist (declaring impending doom when there's really no chance of it), and quite late (I thought people had been considering SMP for a while now). I'm also disappointed in the guy they're quoting (David Patterson from Berkeley), who appears to be out of touch with what is going on in the software world. He says, "We need to get some Manhattan Projects going here - somebody could solve this problem, and whoever solves this problem could have this gigantic advantage on everybody else." From my perspective, Erlang and several functional languages already "solve this problem" quite well, and there is a slew of multi-processor programs out there already which seem to be doing quite fine. Am I missing something here?