Slashdot Mirror


One Step Closer To Speedier, Bootless Computers

CWmike writes "Physicists at the University of California at Riverside have made a breakthrough in developing a 'spin computer,' which would combine logic with nonvolatile memory, bypassing the need for computers to boot up. The advance could also lead to super-fast chips. The new transistor technology, which one lead scientist believes could become a reality in about five years, would reduce power consumption to the point where eventually computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices could remain on all the time. The breakthrough came when scientists at UC Riverside successfully injected a spinning electron into a resistor material called graphene, which is essentially a very thin layer of graphite. The graphene in this case is one-atom thick. The process is known as 'tunneling spin injection.' A lead scientist for the project said the clock speeds of chips made using tunneling spin injection would be 'thousands of times' faster than today's processors. He describes the tech as a totally new concept that 'will essentially give memory some brains.'"

55 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Wishful thinking... by Braintrust · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it wrong that as fast as things as changing these days, part of me still hopes for one of these '1000x faster in 5 years' technologies to live up to its full promise?

    I know it's coming; if not this tech than surely another one... I guess one hopes to live in interesting times, and I still dream for the day I wake up and there's a computer for sale that shatters Moore's Law. A computer 1000x faster than what was available the day before.

    Faster, please.

    (and thank you)

    --
    Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
    1. Re:Wishful thinking... by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1000x in 5 years IS wishful thinking, but it isn't THAT drastically off from Moore's law, which predicts a 1000x increase every 10 to 15 years. And it's never happened overnight, but in steps every few months. Many of the "1000x-predicted" technologies that /. covered 10 years ago probably have been part of the 1000x-actual increase of the last 10 years.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    2. Re:Wishful thinking... by Katzhuu · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not breaking Moore's law. Schedule was 5 years for getting first spin transistor and 10 more till they have been introduced to consumer products. That is 15 years. With performance doubling avery 18 months it would mean that in 15 years performace should be ~1000 times todays performance according to Moore's law. Of course the article talked only about speed and not performace. Performance may get additional boosts from other sources that just the speed of the chip.

    3. Re:Wishful thinking... by pacinpm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A computer 1000x faster than what was available the day before.

      Faster, please.

      (and thank you)

      Isn't 1000x faster too fast? I heard we are already close to the limit of speed of light. If we go faster than chips would have to get smaller so signals can travel across them in one cycle.

    4. Re:Wishful thinking... by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If history is any indicator, then the next version of every software program would then be 1000x slower.

    5. Re:Wishful thinking... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      If history is any indicator, then the next version of every software program would then be 1000x slower.

      Yeah, but they'll also be 1000x smarter, meaning that SpinFox will automatically mod down any messages it thinks you might disagree with - with automatically created, nursed and ripened sock puppets!

      Seriously speaking, 1000x faster starts getting near the level of human brains in raw power, so it should be able to run a real artificial intelligence on it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Wishful thinking... by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again, let's just look at the history. Computers are about 1000x faster than they were in 1980. What does software have to show for it? It's often more of a pain to use (I hate it when software tries to be "smart". Don't second-guess me, just give me an easy way to express what I want to do), and it's buggier than ever.

      Seriously speaking, 1000x faster starts getting near the level of human brains in raw power, so it should be able to run a real artificial intelligence on it.

      Even if this were true, we would have no clue as to how to write one. I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily define "intelligence", let alone propose a plausible algorithm for it. As far as AI is concerned, don't hold your breath.

    7. Re:Wishful thinking... by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem of artificial intelligence is not one of processing power. Even given infinite speed we have no clue how to begin emulating the function of the human brain.

      I'm assuming that by "real AI" you mean a self aware computer program.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    8. Re:Wishful thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      5GHz means cycling every 0.2 nanoseconds. In 0.2 nanoseconds, light travels about 6cm. We're already pretty close to the limit for keeping processing synchronised over a large blob of silicon without using methods more cunning than just saying "feh, doesn't matter, light is fast"

    9. Re:Wishful thinking... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhhh...who boots anymore? Everyone has them set to sleep now, which wakes them in seconds. The only time I see a boot anymore is when a customer brings their desktop in, hell even the XP machines that cross my desk are set to sleep when you push the button. Unless your laptop is nearly dead why would you bother? And even then the new Win 7 hybrid sleep is still faster than a boot and has all your apps going, so why do it?

      Don't get me wrong, setting here with a quad and 8Gb of RAM I sure as hell enjoy fast, but to me it makes about as much sense as all those new distros that make a point to brag about their boot speed. Unless the thing crashed, why would you boot?

      And as for "1000x faster than the day before"? I think that won't happen until app programmers decide that "throw moar at it" isn't a valid strategy. While I've run stripped down OSes on monster machines, as well as built rigs for gamers that had truly insane specs, the OS was fast as greased lightning but the apps just got bigger and slower. Just look at how apps like Reader want to use quickstarters to cover up how bloated they've become. I think the only way you'd get 1000x speed is by starting a new OS from scratch and doing like Minuet and writing it for low level code to minimize the bloat. Because it don't seem to matter, FOSS or proprietary, all the apps are getting fatter.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Wishful thinking... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Again, let's just look at the history. Computers are about 1000x faster than they were in 1980. What does software have to show for it? It's often more of a pain to use (I hate it when software tries to be "smart". Don't second-guess me, just give me an easy way to express what I want to do), and it's buggier than ever.

      If you honestly believe that, fire up DOSBox and spend a day only using software from the '80s. It was no less buggy (and crashing one app did mean crashing the whole OS back then), and it was definitely more of a pain to use.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Wishful thinking... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're only correct in the purely technical sense involving facts. You're completely wrong in the hand-waving making stuff up that sounds plausible sense.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Wishful thinking... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2, Informative

      Again, let's just look at the history. Computers are about 1000x faster than they were in 1980.

      Math Fail.
      30 years is 30*12=360 months.
      360/13=about 27.7 //a doubling of speed in 13 months. Not sure if this is accurate
      2^27.7 = 218,037,342.4.
      That is way more than 1000 times

      Example: A Cray X-MP (1982) had 400 MFLOPS
      The Cray XT-5 (2009)has 1.759 PFLOPS
      This is (1.759x10^15)/(400*10^6)=4,397,500 times as much. Not as much as predicted with x2 every 13 months, but you get the picture.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    13. Re:Wishful thinking... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True. You can make DOSBox emulate the CPU at the correct speed, but I don't think it has a way of emulating the speed of floppy disk drives. Maybe run all of your files off an NFS server on a different continent with no caching. Even then, a modern Internet connection is significantly faster than a floppy disk was, even in terms of latency if the disk was spun down.

      That said, my 8086 PC from the late '80s had a 40MB hard disk. They cost about £100 back then, and it was an after-market addition, replacing the 20MB one it came with. It also had an 8MHz NEC v30 CPU and a whole 640KB of RAM. Windows 3.0 ran on that machine, although running more than one app at a time was a struggle - no MMU meant to virtual memory.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Wishful thinking... by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhhh...who boots anymore?

      Not enough people, if you ask me (front line support tech). Laptop users especially have completely gotten out of the habit of shutting down their computers, making their systems progressively slower and less stable as time goes on. Then they come into my office or call me on the phone with a problem (e.g. Program X won't start or keeps crashing). I shut down ("not just 'shut' but actually 'shut down'") their computer, turn it back on again, and it's "fixed". A waste of my time... and theirs.

      Annoying as it is, the boot process has the benefit of restoring a system to a largely-predictable known-good state. I miss it already.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    15. Re:Wishful thinking... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it wrong that as fast as things as changing these days, part of me still hopes for one of these '1000x faster in 5 years' technologies to live up to its full promise?

      I know it's coming; if not this tech than surely another one... I guess one hopes to live in interesting times, and I still dream for the day I wake up and there's a computer for sale that shatters Moore's Law. A computer 1000x faster than what was available the day before.

      Faster, please.

      (and thank you)

      If you create stuff, you should know that everything takes longer than you think it will; and, therefore, nothing happens as fast as you expect it to happen.

    16. Re:Wishful thinking... by RivenAleem · · Score: 4, Funny

      Annoying as it is, the boot process has the benefit of restoring a system to a largely-predictable known-good state. I miss it already.

      For Windows, I take it the known-good state is the Off state?

    17. Re:Wishful thinking... by Amouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      part of our problem is we are using electrical waves - you can't put a second wave into the pipe till the first is finished - where as if we could switch to optics we could in theory slam the photons as close together as we can and have them back to back in the pipe...

      while now at 5Ghz we have 1 signal per 6cm with photons we could have near infinite in the same space.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    18. Re:Wishful thinking... by durrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is only a problem for off-circuit communication, current CPUs are something along the line of 1cm diagonally if they are large, meaning that computation within the limits of an integrated circuit(or equivalent device in similar size) can be ludicrously much faster before lightspeed becomes a true limitation.
      This especially when we consider spintronics devices as their dimnuitive power requirements allow us to hypothise about a cubic cm supercomputation circuit without having to factor in a cooling system capable of maintaining polar caps on the sun.

      While moores law holds up nicely as a maintainer and guideline for incremental improvements in technology we have to consider that moores law is a half century old 'invention'. We will eventually have a paradigm shift which suprasses it because of some innovative breaktrough, just like moores law itself was enabled to be conceptualized by the invention and progress of integrated circuits.

      I suggest we name the sucessor "Even Moore's Law" because calling it Moore's law 2.0 would be so 1.0.

    19. Re:Wishful thinking... by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily define "intelligence", let alone propose a plausible algorithm for it.

      I use the definition, "a problem solving engine"; that is to say, an engine based entirely on solving any problem presented to it (presumably using an extensible language, internally if not externally). Things like "How do I gather all of my senses into one place for processing" and "given all of this sensory information, what do I do now" and "how do I express my feelings for this person (with or without saying anything)" are problems and so could be understood by such an engine, as could many other facets of intelligence. Or, in other words, once you had an engine like that, making something look intelligent is only about finding the right problems for it to take on... which, in the end, is also something we see in humans.

      But yeah, I wouldn't want to try to implement that in code. I firmly believe it could be done, but I don't have the expertise to do it.

    20. Re:Wishful thinking... by at_slashdot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moore's law is an observation, not a law, and it's actually about the number of transistors per surface unit, it doesn't say anything about speed.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    21. Re:Wishful thinking... by skids · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, supposedly consciousness will emerge on its own once enough complexity is introduced, so it's just a matter of jamming as much complexity down in there as we can. Maybe an entire copy of the business logic of all the world's health insurance and financial companies would do the trick. :-)

      Now as to whether the consciousness will have a will, or be a passive observer, that's a better question (neglecting the tenable argument that will is an illusion.) Creating consciousness won't be very interesting to us out here if all it does is treat us as an entertaining TV show. Besides, there are far simpler ways to create coach potatoes.

    22. Re:Wishful thinking... by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You couldn't. Photons don't work like distinct particles, really. If you want a light signal that's localized in space, it will consist of multiple photons and will spread out as it travels. The EM wave packet will interfere with nearby wave packets in much the same way as you describe.

    23. Re:Wishful thinking... by Amouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read up on Single mode fiber - in multi mode yes its the same problem as with Electrical waves on wires. But in Single mode fiber it's more like a serialized pipe.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-mode_optical_fiber

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  2. spin computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    am i the only one who read the title and thought that PR firms and politicians could be in serious trouble?

  3. Bad summary again... by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, this is becoming a trend. Bad summary. It's not an outright lie, just misleading. From reading the article, one might get the sense that we might see this in products in 5 years. However, the article actually states that the guy said:
    "I'm one of those researchers that really cringes at the thought of saying this [new technology] can be useful. I think for us, maybe within five years we can get one device working."

    So, the guy is realistic, and not a douche. "We can maybe get one working in 5 years" is not the same as seeing it in devices in 5 years (which, again, wasn't explicitly stated in the summary, but i feel like thats what people would think).

    In reality, we might get something in products in 10 years.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:Bad summary again... by Zouden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also terribly pedestrian to say that this could lead to "speedier, bootless computers", like as if this technology will be implemented in the next Intel chip and suddenly Windows will load instantly and we'll all get high framerates in Crysis. Really, this technology is similar to quantum computing - eventually it'll find its way into extremely specialised applications, and by the time (or if) it does make it into our homes, computers will be very different things, almost unrecognisable.

      Also, "mobile phones and other electronic devices could remain on all the time." Guess what? My mobile phone already remains on all the time, because I recharge it every few days. If the reporter is talking about devices remaining on without charging, what does he think is going to power the antenna and the display? The scientists haven't invented a free energy device.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    2. Re:Bad summary again... by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Much like fusion power is 10 years away, and always will be.

      The Standard Perpetual Interval for fusion is 50 years. Plan accordingly. The SPI for balancing the US Federal budget is 10 years. SPI to market for all exciting new microelectronic/quantum dot/spintronic/nanomechanical/etc. systems is 5 years. Duke Nukem Forever SPI is next year.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    3. Re:Bad summary again... by shougyin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure if this technology is in any resemblance to the old atom spinning technology that I read about years ago, and I've not researched into this much yet, BUT from what I remember of spin technology there is no need for "boot time" or "shutting down" a system. With the atoms spun in a certain position (say, to that of your normal desktop) the computer can be turned off, probably by the same usual methods, but it would shut off much like if you were to kill the power instantly. The atoms being saved in a certain position, would remain in that position while the computer isn't running. So when you next attempt to turn the computer on, it reads the position of the atoms and brings up the screen immediately, as if you had just turned off your monitor and turned it back on. However, that is from something I read a long time ago. And I’m not completely sure that it will work like that.

  4. Re:I wonder though by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the one about 'You can keep them powered on', it's like a game changer from out of left field. Maybe booting will become irrelevant by then?

    Not if they're running Windows. Doesn't it still have to reboot whenever you update the freaking PDF viewer?

  5. Cool stuff but... by PmanAce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will this new technology finally bring us to our beloved flying cars?

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    1. Re:Cool stuff but... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. Right after it gives us the Matrix.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. Boolean Memory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He describes the tech as a totally new concept that 'will essentially give memory some brains.

    Computer memory combined with logic gates.

  7. 'will essentially give memory some brains' by janek78 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Close, but not what I need - I need something to give my brain some memory!

  8. Can't we get that already with memristors? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For that matter, wouldn't any non-volatile, high speed memory device do the job?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  9. All I want to know is... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Funny

    What excuse do I use now to go and make my morning cup of coffee without looking like a slacker?

  10. Re:I wonder though by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You could have had faster booting via an OS from Japan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTRON
    But MS and the US gov had it killed due to market intervention.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Computer vision for mobile devices by S3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

    eat all CPU power available and can eat couple of order of magnitude more.

  12. Re:One step closer to SkyNet by Rip+Dick · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you played Fallout 3, you would know that a plasma rifle wouldn't vaporize you. It would melt you into a puddle of goo. Now a laser rifle can vaporize you...

  13. Re:we dont need more processing power tho by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    even today's mainstream cpus are far more powerful than what our everyday tasks involve. even the fps-hungry gaming crowd has been reaching perceptive limits in regard to human eye, and the frame rate has become a sport, a statistical value.

    unless society takes on seti, parallel computing etc as hobbies, we wont need more processing power in our daily lives.

    Just wait till the next version of windows hits the shelves...

    I'm fairly certain that computing power is like hard drive space or time 'till the deadline , we will always find ways to fill it, no matter how much we think we have in the beginning.

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
  14. Re:we dont need more processing power tho by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    even today's mainstream cpus are far more powerful than what our everyday tasks involve.

    Usually that's true. But today I was using Autodesk Inventor, which is a parametric CAD solid modeling system. That's one of the few desktop applications that can usefully use gigabytes of memory and a dozen CPUs.

    (I worked on the development of AutoCAD in the early 1980s, when the problem was cramming usefully sized drawings into 640K of RAM, a 20MB hard drive, and an 0.25 MIPS CPU. It was a tough cramming job. I used to dream about the day when we could have a CAD system with real-time solid modeling, automatically connected to CNC machine tools, running on a desktop computer. It took four or five more orders of magnitude in CPU power to make it work, and it's here. I'm glad I got to see it happen.)

  15. As for me, by mbstone · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd settle for speedier, botless computers.

  16. Re:Just great... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny
    Does this mean my Windows machine will catch viruses before they're even released?

    Well, 'spin computer' definitely sounds like a Microsoft product.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  17. Re:Graphene Revolution by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Windows update?

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  18. Wrong conclusion by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The earliest computers had non-volatile memory, but that is where the booting process originates from!

    The word "booting" comes from the word "bootstrap" which was the tiny program you had to toggle in (with binary switches for the register and the address) into memory, which you could start and which would then load the OS from punch cards.

    The memory was still filled, but you did not know what with. So the computer's memory was basically a swamp, and it had to pull itself out with its own bootstraps, like Baron von Münchhausen. Hence the name.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  19. Re:Graphene Revolution by sempir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'will essentially give memory some brains.'" Now if they can develop this for human consumption think what it would do for people with Alz........Aaahhhhhh......whassitcalled? ....

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  20. Bootless a reality already by robi5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bootless computers are a reality. The operating system needs to be written in flash memory (or ROM, with flash
    memory patching). It's simple. The boot time of popular OSes stems from two reasons: Microsoft is a technically uninspired desktop OS monopoly; Linux has server origins and Linux on the desktop is nothing but an uninspired copycat of an uninspired MS implementation.

    The Commodore 64 featured a bootless design like 30 years ago.

  21. Re:Graphene Revolution by digitig · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those of us who don't get our electricity bill paid by our parents.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  22. Is the Software Ready for This? by mdm42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, all very nice, we'll be able to have always-on computers that don't pig out on energy, BUT...

    How much of the software we use can handle running for long periods of time without crashing? Not many, in my experience.

    What with memory leaks, bounds overflows and who knows what else, some of which may be an oversight in your own code, but more likely is a bug inside some library you're using, or a compiler bug, or linker bug, or...

    As anybody who has tried it and knows, writing software that runs for weeks and months on end without restarting is really quite hard. And it's no bloody use if the hardware can stay up for months on end if the software can't.

    (And, not having used Windows in about 14 years, I'm not talking about that piece of shite.)

    --
    New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    1. Re:Is the Software Ready for This? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on your context: for a user-facing computer, that is pretty much true. If X pukes itself, taking my graphical programs with it(or even if my browser pukes itself, taking my tabs with it) I might as well have rebooted the computer for all the inconvenience I've just been put to. There are even a few situations where(without good design) non-volatile memory could make things worse: today, if some peripheral gets confused and its internal processor stops talking, or starts talking nonsense to the outside world, you just cut the power. Unless it has been doing something unsafe, like a firmware update, it'll be fine when it comes back up. If it is nonvolatile, it'll be just as confused as when it went down. You'll need either markedly better firmware teams, or explicitly "state-flush" watchdogs or you'll be RMAing Wifi and graphics cards like there's no tomorrow.

      On the other hand, if I'm running a really low power system(not a "cry for me, I have to run off batteries" low power, more like "I have to run off a piezoelectric device catching vibrations" or "I have to run off a blood glucose fuel cell" low power), the ability to seamlessly drift between sleeping and waking, in milliseconds, would come in pretty handy.

      On a more consumer-relevant scale, laptops and phones that have a standby time limited only by the self-discharge rate of their battery chemistry would be nice, as would desktops for which "suspend" replaces "off" and "flush state" is a special error correction function only, rather than the default "off" state.

      On the server side, rapid supply scaling would be much easier if you could just keep the NIC alive and active(to skip DHCP, which takes a second or two); but able to wake the entire rest of the box, running the hypervisor or server of choice and ready to start handling requests in under a second. The NIC code, and whatever code(hypervisor or kernel) that manages the VMs or server instances would have to be rock solid; but you could kill and restart individual VMs and server instances as needed, and those would presumably be where most of the complexity lives.

  23. Booting by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Computers needing to "boot" is a relatively modern invention caused in part by hardware hotplug, backwards compatibility modes and reliability checks.

    Most of the boot process is:

    - Moving out of legacy modes (e.g. enabling increased capabilities from basic instructions sets to full modern ones, enabling different memory access models, enabling 64-bit etc.), ramping up core speed, enabling things like DMA and moving from "safe" memory timings to those that the chips report they can support when the negotiations finally take place, bringing up the non-boot CPU's, etc.

    - Contention. Doing only a certain number of things on the bus at any one time, making the buses serial, making the buses have sub-buses and other ideas. Sometimes there is no quicker way to do things. Sometimes it *will* take 1000ms before the disk will respond that it's up to speed.

    - Checking that RAM does indeed do what it's told, that a boot loader is present, that a floppy is present (yes, even on some modern BIOS's), checking IDE/SATA channels and retrieving capabilities, checking memory timings, checking PCI and USB buses, checking that disks are spinning, etc.

    Some of my servers take up to 3 minutes to get to the point where they can actually load the first byte from disk to begin loading it. A lot of this time is BIOS handoff to the BIOS on the RAID cards (and sometimes the network cards), those RAID cards checking, assembling and enabling the drives, etc. With two RAID cards, we've just nearly doubled boot time. Proper (reasonable) memory checks of several GB of RAM still takes a while, even for a simple test. And yet there's still a minute or so of absolute complete waste as we start in some 8086 legacy mode and slowly have to ramp up disks, cards and our own CPU's, not to mention external hardware like USB and DVD drives "just in case". And then the OS has to go and do it all itself again later anyway.

    This is why things like the LinuxBIOS (now called Coreboot) project actually work better and faster - when we KNOW what the BIOS needs to do, we find that lots of it is done twice, lots of it are unnecessary, lots of it can be delayed until we actually NEED the DVD drive, some of it can occur in the background because it will ALWAYS take a long time to start etc. But how many fixed sets of hardware does that project actually work on? Few. Because not only is it tricky to do that sort of analysis, but it's tricky to lock-down exactly what the BIOS needs to do and do better than the original BIOS.

    We can have an "instant on" computer. It's easy. My ZX Spectrum did it nearly 30 years ago. My calculator does it now. The Psion organisers all did it. Most portable games consoles manage it. The thing you have to realise though is that it means: booting into a single, fixed OS that's tricky to upgrade, making power management apply to every process perfectly, fixing a set of hardware down that we know can always boot into a certain configuration very quickly, changing the way that all our chips work so they start in their best mode, not their worst (and thus probably destroying things like OS installers as we know them and making them specific to a machine type - no more installers modern OS on old computers, or old OS on modern computers), removing any sort of consistency checks and having to rely on things not going wrong or the hardware being able to handle all hardware errors (e.g. ECC memory for everything with reporting of anything it can't handle), and building every component so it doesn't "negotiate" or "initialise" but just works (e.g. even a keyboard controller can take some time to come back online at the moment, not to mention graphics, disks, USB buses, etc.).

    Instant-on computers are always possible, and some of them are very useful for certain things. But generic PC's and instant-on won't happen until CPU's, disks and bus negotiations take literally fractions of a second for any operation (and thus we still do as many instructions to initialise but they take clock cycles

  24. Speedy booting? So back to the 80s then by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't want to sound like your usual get-off-my-lawn but in the in the days of home computers you could switch it on and it would be ready literally in under a second. Yes I know the "OS" was probably only 16K in size or less but it was in ROM and the computer didn't bother with pointless self checking (you'll soon know if some hardware on your PC isn't working).

    Even early DOS machines could boot in mere seconds. So really all this very complicated technology is doing is bringing us back to where we were 20 or 30 years ago.

    Plus ca change.

  25. Re:Graphene Revolution by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you start advocating the death, en masse, of your political opponents, you've moved outside the realm of civilized society. Stop. Even if it's "just a joke".

  26. Re:Graphene Revolution by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

    you probably need to rethink your spending priorities.

    Hmm. Two pints of beer or electricity for a device I'm not using. Tough call. (Anyway, not all of the computers I run are "modern devices").

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  27. Re:Just great... by camperslo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps this means our machines will get selective memory, just like us

    ERROR: This Couldn't Possibly Matter

    Alert: Christmas is coming, loading "It's A Wonderful Life", analyzing, transferring funds to a poor banker