Slashdot Mirror
Why We Need a Second Moore's Law
Roland Piquepaille writes "In its April issue, Wired Magazine argues that we need a second Moore's law, this time about overall efficiencies of our computers and other electronic devices. The subtitle of the article summarizes it: "If we don't do something about increasing battery life, we're toast." Michael S. Malone, the author, says that the first Moore's law is endangered, not because the semiconductor industry cannot build new generation of chips, but because we will not be able to provide them with enough power. And he contends that the problem arises from the fact that we are using more and more wireless devices, which obviously are not connected to a plug. This overview contains selected excerpts of this eye-opening article."
What we need is a fourth axis of development - a systematic improvement of overall system efficiency, from the individual silicon gate, through motherboards and displays, all the way up to the Internet itself. How do we do it? Exhaustively.
Exactly. When processor speeds and memory was low the industry did their best to fit what they could in the limited space. Now that we have more room we are being lazy and only concentrating on making things "larger than life" instead of faster and smaller.
We should really start to concentrate on making the software run best under what we currently have. I know that Intel and Kingston wouldn't exactly be happy but our pockets and our grid would.
Moore's law is an observation, not something that the industry is forced to follow. You can't just say "we need more efficiency - let's define a new Moore's law".
Phil
This sounds a little dodgy to me. This statement seems to imply that a law is 'needed' to fix a current problem (i.e. batteries not keeping up with processor power). But why would some contrived 'law' do anything to solve this problem? After all, the original Moore's law was a prediction - no more, no less. No one has ever actually been guided by it.
I feel that putting the problem forth in this way is just clouding the issue.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
What many people don't realize is that Moore didn't just say the one famous sentence. He wrote a short paper explaining his predictions and they were far more complicated than simply doubling power while maintaining cost. He qualified it by explaining it would only be possible if certain things happen. He was well aware of certain limits which we've now passed with unexpected technologies.
So while many here will complain his prediction was flawed because he didn't consider so many other things, remember he actually had a lot more in mind than just regularly doubling speed.
Developers: We can use your help.
n its April issue, Wired Magazine argues that we need a second Moore's law, this time about overall efficiencies of our computers and other electronic devices. The subtitle of the article summarizes it: "If we don't do something about increasing battery life, we're toast."
I can imagine the board room at Intel where the chairman is yelling, "The 3rd quarter numbers suggest we aren't going to make Moore's law this year! I want people to double their efforts -- cancel lunch until further notice!"
I can guarantee that if wired magazine invents a new moore's law, it is going to have zero effect on technology. Anyways, Moore's law is based on an observation, maybe we should look at the growth of power requirements and fit it to that.
I suggest we call the wired law: Moron's Law
OK, when on the move, how many people who are doing word processing need more than the features of WordPerfect 5, the early versions of Excel for Windows and that kind of thing?
What we need is a really low electrical power CPU - optimized to take as little electricity as possible, but which is capable of running these kinds of applications acceptably quickly. It probably doesn't need to be more than 50MHz. Put this in a ultra-lightweight laptop style case, using solid state storage for disk (you can get USB memory sticks with 512MB which is more than sufficient for this class of computing) and have the battery go a day or two between charges.
My mobile phone is a case in point. Although it's not a word processor, I've got an organizer, email client, lightweight web browser, camera, SSH client, IRC client and pager all rolled into one, and it'll go ten days without a charge on standby, and can be used for 7 hours on one charge with a tiny battery. I can even make phone calls on it. Make essentially a notebook with mobile phone technology, and you've got an excellent portable internet terminal that you can write documents, make spreadsheets, compile small programs etc. on.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I second that. It makes me sad when people say that it doesn't matter the software is inefficient, because computers will get faster, which will solve the problem. What this means is that, because the developers were sloppy, the users have to pay more (they need faster and typically more power-hungry machines).
Making more efficient software benefits users _now_, instead of in 5 years when computers have gotten faster and new power sources have been invented, and new software will have been invented that needs even faster computers. Having a lot of CPU power is no excuse for wasting it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"I'm thinking more of a way to utilize kinetic energy and translate it into stored power."
The problem is not with the abiliuty to generate the power but a way to efficiently store it with something that is at a reasonable size. Batteries/Power Cells are not moving at a very fast pace compared to the rest of the industry. We can generate all the power in the world but we don't have a small cost effective way to store it yet.
Evolution or ID?
I can't count how many times I heard a professor say "don't optimize", "memory is cheap".
When everyone is more worried about making thier code pretty instead of efficient, well we get what we've got. Feh.Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Hasn't it been pretty well proven that too much manual optimisation doesn't pay off? The time taken to optimise delays entry to the market, causing the optimised product to be obsoleted by newer (unoptimised) technology.
Isn't this pointing to a requirement for better automated design software, able to do optimisation in essentialy zero time. Any optimisation between manufacturers will require their design tools to automatically exchange data. I can't see too many manufacturers being prepared to swap such detailed design information (unless they are 'open source').