Originally Posted by Kolchak
Three years is an eternity in the software field. Nobody would want to install Leopard on a new system, and that's less than three years old. The only exception is Windows, where people clung desperately to an aging XP during the Vista fiasco.
Not really. It took almost two years from the time that the first iPhone beta was released until there where a good quantity of no trivial apps available. For those apps to stabilize it took even longer.
Again you fail to see this from the perspective of the developer which in the case of OpenCL is all that matters. In many cases developers simply aren't going to go out of their way to tell you which libraries they use in their software. For the user it simply doesn't matter. OpenCL is just one of many libs and headers that get folded into an app. For example a developer could make extensive use of BOOST and not tell you.
Geez. What a nasty attitude. If I had a dollar for every piece of software that never made it off developers' hard drives, I could retire right now.
That is completely true (assuming the software is any good). From the standpoint of a user does it really matter? Another point of view is all the custom software that never leaves the place of development because it is considered strategic to a business. Either way you may never know which libraries are in use.
Real Soon Now and vaporware are ridiculously common.
Again you simply don't know what you are taking about. OpenCL is widely used, the problem is you have to pull your head out of the sand and look around a bit. You say it is hardly used in the Apple whorl yet the facts are very different. For example grab otool and start looking at the apps and libraries that make installed software on your machine. Run it against CoreImage and you get something like:
XXXXXXXXXXXX$ otool -L CoreImage
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/QuartzCore.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/CoreImage.framework/Versions/A/CoreImage (compatibility version 1.0.1, current version 1.0.1)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreVideo.framework/Versions/A/CoreVideo (compatibility version 1.2.0, current version 1.7.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenCL.framework/Versions/A/OpenCL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenGL.framework/Versions/A/OpenGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/IOSurface.framework/Versions/A/IOSurface (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenGL.framework/Versions/A/Libraries/libGLImage.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/Accelerate.framework/Versions/A/Accelerate (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 4.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Foundation (compatibility version 300.0.0, current version 833.1.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/A/ApplicationServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 41.0.0)
\t/usr/lib/libcrypto.0.9.8.dylib (compatibility version 0.9.8, current version 0.9.8)
\t/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/FaceCoreLight.framework/Versions/A/FaceCoreLight (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.4.2)
\t/usr/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib (compatibility version 7.0.0, current version 52.0.0)
\t/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 159.0.0)
\t/usr/lib/libobjc.A.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 228.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Versions/A/CoreServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 53.0.0)
\t/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreFoundation.framework/Versions/A/CoreFoundation (compatibility version 150.0.0, current version 633.0.0)
Note the linkage to OpenCL above. Now ask yourself what apps use CoreImage. So you see the reality is that almost every app uses OpenCL to the extent that CoreImage does. This is OpenCL in CoreImage, where else it might be used is up to the person looking.
Just listen to yourself. I wrote in my first post that OpenCL is still obscure three years after it was announced and most people don't know any software using it.
i've also told you repeatedly that you are wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about. OpenCL has been tremendously successful and is in many ways eclipsing CUDA as the primary way to leverage GPU's for compute tasks. OpenCL has been so successful that CUDA now looks like legacy software.
You went on the warpath as if I'd killed your firstborn, despite later admitting "Frankly there is little pay off for most consumers."
How is that contradictory, I've gone after your bogus claims because they are totally misleading. The fact is many consumer apps will never see a huge benefit from OpenCL, simply because they don't deal with data in a way that can every be leveraged by the facility. On the flip side Apple does use OpenCL in their libraries, so by default many programs do make use of OpenCL even if the core of the program does not.
The bigger problems I see it is why are you hung up on OpenCL? Seriously Apple supplies many libraries that get very modest use but are used by some apps. Even more importantly do you expect Apple and the various software vendors to always spell out what features they are using. Especially in the case of OpenCL which has fall back mechanisms so that code will execute even if the OpenCL compatible card isn't there. The whole facility is designed to be transparent to the user.
A lesser problem might be the fact that the term GPGPU computing is misleading. What is currently executing on the GPU is not really general purpose code. It certainly isn't normal GPU code either. GPU's display the best advantage on data parallel code, outside of image processing there isn't a lot of consumer apps that are structured such that the GPU makes a difference executing core code. So you see OpenCL used in places where developers can use the strength of the GPU to their advantage.
So am I on a warpath, not really I just get extremely angry when people knock OpenCL without knowing. OpenCL is so important that I don't even recommend computers without OpenCL support unless another feature is of overriding concern. You may call that overboard which is your right to do so, but I believe this board needs to be balanced and reflect reality. That reality is that Apple does use OpenCL and the standard has very wide industry support. I'd even go so far as to call it surprisingly successful.