jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Initially Moore *observed* a doubling every year in the number of
>> transistors on a chip and projected this would continue for a
>> >decade. A decade later he changed the projection to a doubling
>> every two years. This has held pretty well for decades now."
>
> Moore's law has to come to odds with the law of diminishing returns.
> This is a reality. Throwing the GPU in the CPU does not make a better
> CPU. What's more, look at how the speed of these processors is stuck
> at a couple of GHz. Electrons only move so fast.
>
> I predicted they would figure out optical processors eventually, and
> they probably will, but when is eventually ?
>
Not very soon. Optical is the domain of companies saddled with crushing
debt from all those crashes over the last 20 years. Others know
far more than I, but I wouldn't expect to see it, frankly. SFAIK
(which is pitifully little ) not much processing happens in the optical
domain.
> In all things there is a theoretical limit. Even if a car engine has
> a VE of friggin 200, it cannot exceed its theoretical compression
> ratio, and if you separate the components, even a turbo or
> supercharger cannot do it. What's more, the crank can only stand so
> much force.
>
> They have TV sets with 1080p resolution. do you think they are going
> to go higher ? They are getting to the point where people can't see
> any better.
>
They are going higher. It's called 4K and you can see them at Best Buy
and at Sams and they are spectacular.
Right now, it's custom demo reels to show them off - there is little if
any program material commercially available beyond BluRay but I'm not
usually impressed by video, but these, you can get lost in.
> Computers ? They are so fast now that even Microsoft can't write
> software to slow them down enough anymore. They've been outdone by
> the people who wrote Solidworks and Rhinocerous. But at least those
> programs DO something. Maybe Pspice, but I aonly have LTspice. It can
> take a few second to analyze and do a simulation, but then this
> computer is like from 2008. My brand new Win 10 coputer at work is no
> faster.
>
> What did we gain ?
>
Nobody really wants to face the realities of software. If you do, as I
do, high-performance* realtime, it's really sort of lonely
out here. I can read about some people doing some things some
ways on the Internet but it's mostly people knitting .NET,
Java or Python together. Or worse.
*which is always domain dependent.
Windows itself is no excuse for any of jitter, latency or the like.
You can tune out a Linux distro for pretty good high rate performance,
but it doesn't really come that way stock.
> Well we stimulated the economy and put a bunch of geeks to work.
And that's it. Some time about 1990, it stopped being "woe betide you
who choose to practice this". Too many 200 pound lumps stuck on the
couch, I guess.
> Ad
> that is what it is. We really do not need any more, they have to push
> it or they're out of a job. I'd use Win 98SE on a 486 if I could get
> the damn thing to connect to the router.
No, because FAT32 and the propensity for Win98 to just
latch. Make that Win2k and I am right behind you. I do a lot of work
at home in a Win2k VM.
> It was simply not that slow.
> The other problem is the browser.
>
> The internet is the biggest impetus for this buy and throw out deal
> we got now. Friggin nags me to upgrade my browser to see a picture
> hosted on one of those sites, go fuck yourself. I can do everything
> else I want just they way it is, I have to change to see a picture ?
but that's what the Innernet *is* to most people.
> Tell you what, you want to show me a picture get Dropbox and use the
> \public directory. Simple, no ads, no frames, no nothing, just the
> damn picture. Want a caption, take a super uper duper advanced
> graphics program like Paint Shop Pro 4 from 1995 or so and "expand
> canvas" and then go to the little "A" and insert some text. Be sure
> to pick the right font size first, that can be tricky at times.
>
> I would use DOS. Hell, it is probably easier to write programs for
> DOS but you supply the GUI. People will not give up their mouse.
>
> Anyway, the law of diminishing returns is really a factor here and
> one of the reasons I won't buy anything anymore. Plus they always
> take out functions I want.
>
> Bottom line, putting more transistors on a chip is not advance. You
> throw the GPU in there, that is just two chips in one package.
It's analogous to body count in Vietnam, or tractors
in the Soviet Union. . "Glorious Soviet production
of transistors up 10% this year."
> Alright they can communicate a bit faster, but not all that much.
> Eventually they might put the soundcard in the CPU too and call that
> an advancement. But it ain't, it is just saving them a few bucks.
If all else fails, do packaging.
> Next maybe the wifi receiver goes in, but still all they have done is
> to cram more stuff into one package.
>
I would actively not buy a rolled in wifi widget.
> Ad then, when just ONE of those billions of transistors goes bad in
> there, you have to shitcan the whole thing. How convenient for them.
>
> That's progress.
>
"I went back to the store
They gave me four more
The guy told me at the door
It's a piece of crap " - Neil Young, "Piece Of Crap"
--
Les Cargill