Check this out...

[TheCotMan]

Realistically what use is that board if not for use in a server role? Most run of the mill applications are not developed with multiprocessor support in mind and wouldn't be able to take full advantage of a setup like that.

This is a good point to make, but here are some devil's advocate counter-statements:

Microsoft has stated requirements for future versions of Windows to work best with multi-core CPU/multiple-CPU and we find the gaming world tends to push for faster hardware more than the common productivity software.(average user hadrware requirements for Longhorn from April/May 2004)

As a result of OS support from MS, new vendors of applications may be required to provide minimal support for multiple CPU in order to get those "Designed for new Windows" stickers (Developer info for Longhorn is a moving target from Feb 16,2005)

In addition, Operating systems that are SMP-happy can still find ways to take advantage of software not built to support multiple CPU with simple round-robin assignment, or find a more optimal resource assignment/scheduler based on CPU utilization or other information.

Yes, I agree that most apps will need to be built to support multiple CPU and take full advantage of multiple CPU systems, but if an OS has multiple processes looking to run, the OS can help cause single-CPU applications to take advatage of multiple CPU by decreasing time for them to be scheduled to run. Applications that need wpeed will be built to support multiple core/CPU and ones that do not, may not.

Requirements from OS vendors for new applications to support multiple CPU may find their way into design specification and become manditory for the seal of approval from OS vendors.

Look at a common Windows box and you will see many services running "at the same time." A properly built OS would find ways to use multiple CPU with multiple processes wishing to run at the same time. The modern-day OS more closely resemble servers; look at all of the default services running with open ports on Windows 95,98,ME,NT,2k and XP.

During the 70's and early 80's we had multiple processor systems for home users with separate processor for CPU, Math, Sound, Video, Other. Then we saw a push to move these into software emulation of hardware with the CPU or integration into the CPU (eg math coprocessor.) Now we are again seeing specialization and offloading of processing in separate processors for Sound, and Video Cards that have more transistors than many Pentium CPU.

Even home home game consoles are moving in that direction. (Check out posts from Bascule over the past 4 months on Cell Architecture and others.) Cell Processor thread on the forums which includes mention of Sony Playstation 3. Cell Processor Explained another thread. (Showing more on future trends)
[content added below this point, and links added above this point.[
Blackcomb (successor to longhorn.)
simple review of how Windows NT uses priority-based round robin for scheduling with multiple processors (scroll to bottom.)

I understand you wrote, "take full advantage of a setup like that," and agree with this up to a point. I also agree that many server services are presently better able to take advantage of a quad processor system. However, future trends seem to show us desktop machines will be multi-processor/multi-core systems and as a result will eventually make multi-core/multi-CPU desktop applications the new de facto standard for personal computing.