The irony of this whole sub-thread is that I did a very brief (and not so accurate) mental math and figured that the number would be on the order of several hundred meters, not half a meter. In that case, three dimensions would help, but wouldn't bring it down to a reasonable size.
It wasn't until I had already done the math that I realized I had already proved myself wrong.
But, remember that light only travels at.... the speed of light. And the current crop of chips using copper interconnects propigate at maybe 1/2 or 2/3 that speed, meaning in a theoretical 1,000GHz chip (not too far off by Moore's law), electrical impulses can only travel about 50um. This means that each processor "stage" must fit in that basic area. The "waveform" has to propigate through the entire series of gates in a single cycle. This is daunting to say the least.
So while I think we will keep improving processing capabilities, I think Moore's "law" will be shot down in the next 15-20 years at most and growth will continue more slowly after that.
I think the next area to look at is algorithm study, where the programs are made to use the processing power we DO have much more efficiently and for greater purpose.
*****"I think we've picked the winner, something that will allow this thing we call Moore's Law to continue on for another 50 years. I used to think it was impossible. Now I think it's inevitable."****
This seems to be a stretch of the imagination. Moore's law defines, specifically "the number of components per integrated function" doubles every 12-24 months (is historically slightly more than 24 months), but is also (perhaps improperly) used to say that performance of processors doubles in that time.
In any case, following the progression of Moore's law from 1965 to today and through for the next 50 years reveals a minor (perhaps major) flaw in this scientist's assertion.
The atomic diameter of an average old atom of some metallic element that would be used in transistor fabrication is about 10^-10 meters. The atoms in their molecular "crossbar" technology would be much larger, plus inter-atom spacing of about 0.3nm... we can assume there would be an element every 1nm.
With 1.84 quadrillion elements per component, we're talking 42 million components on a side, assuming uniform density and perfect 100% usage of space on the atomic level, these chips are just about half a meter in size.
Ok, so I proved myself wrong! Moores law has the TECHNICAL possibilty of holding true for the next 48 years. Beyond which, atomic structures themselves make the process of shrinking the components all but impossible.
Sure, it would have been cheaper IF Microsoft had not threatened to "audit" those companies who were on their shit-list if they did not sign up for Software Assurance.
Companies that could pass an official audit with less than a bank-breaking settlement are few and far between.
The best way to tell a customer "I can't do that" is to SHOW the customer "You can't afford that".
When we're handed an unreasonable software rollout on antequated equipment, the simple solution is to say, "Sure, we'll need 500 new machines, licenses to upgrade all of their copies of Office and Oracle, and we can have it done for you only a month if you authorize time and a half payment of overtime for the staffing requirements."
They do the mental math, come up with an unreasonable number and come back to us with a more reasonable effort.
Actually once last year, they said "sure, go ahead" and we got 500 brand new machines and the cash to hire a few more employees to help with the migration.
I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution.
I see a major problem with that.
Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?"
You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next".
When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different.
I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx".
It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does.
"I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout.
Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that".
The final point I want to make is this:
Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power.
I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution.
I see a major problem with that.
Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?"
You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next".
When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different.
I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx".
It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does.
"I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout.
Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that".
The final point I want to make is this:
Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power.
Stewed
~~~
Squirrel
Slashdot Mirror
The irony of this whole sub-thread is that I did a very brief (and not so accurate) mental math and figured that the number would be on the order of several hundred meters, not half a meter. In that case, three dimensions would help, but wouldn't bring it down to a reasonable size.
It wasn't until I had already done the math that I realized I had already proved myself wrong.
But, remember that light only travels at.... the speed of light. And the current crop of chips using copper interconnects propigate at maybe 1/2 or 2/3 that speed, meaning in a theoretical 1,000GHz chip (not too far off by Moore's law), electrical impulses can only travel about 50um. This means that each processor "stage" must fit in that basic area. The "waveform" has to propigate through the entire series of gates in a single cycle. This is daunting to say the least.
So while I think we will keep improving processing capabilities, I think Moore's "law" will be shot down in the next 15-20 years at most and growth will continue more slowly after that.
I think the next area to look at is algorithm study, where the programs are made to use the processing power we DO have much more efficiently and for greater purpose.
Stewed
Squirrel
*****"I think we've picked the winner, something that will allow this thing we call Moore's Law to continue on for another 50 years. I used to think it was impossible. Now I think it's inevitable."****
This seems to be a stretch of the imagination. Moore's law defines, specifically "the number of components per integrated function" doubles every 12-24 months (is historically slightly more than 24 months), but is also (perhaps improperly) used to say that performance of processors doubles in that time.
In any case, following the progression of Moore's law from 1965 to today and through for the next 50 years reveals a minor (perhaps major) flaw in this scientist's assertion.
1971: 2,250 - Intel 4004
1982: 120,000 - Intel 80286
1993: 3.1 million - Intel Pentium
2003: 55 million - Intel P4 Northwood
2013: 1.76 billion
2023: 56 billion
2033: 1.8 trillion
2043: 57.6 trillion
2053: 1,840 trillion
The atomic diameter of an average old atom of some metallic element that would be used in transistor fabrication is about 10^-10 meters. The atoms in their molecular "crossbar" technology would be much larger, plus inter-atom spacing of about 0.3nm... we can assume there would be an element every 1nm.
With 1.84 quadrillion elements per component, we're talking 42 million components on a side, assuming uniform density and perfect 100% usage of space on the atomic level, these chips are just about half a meter in size.
Ok, so I proved myself wrong! Moores law has the TECHNICAL possibilty of holding true for the next 48 years. Beyond which, atomic structures themselves make the process of shrinking the components all but impossible.
Stewed Squirrel
Sure, it would have been cheaper IF Microsoft had not threatened to "audit" those companies who were on their shit-list if they did not sign up for Software Assurance.
Companies that could pass an official audit with less than a bank-breaking settlement are few and far between.
Stewed
Squirrel
The best way to tell a customer "I can't do that" is to SHOW the customer "You can't afford that".
When we're handed an unreasonable software rollout on antequated equipment, the simple solution is to say, "Sure, we'll need 500 new machines, licenses to upgrade all of their copies of Office and Oracle, and we can have it done for you only a month if you authorize time and a half payment of overtime for the staffing requirements."
They do the mental math, come up with an unreasonable number and come back to us with a more reasonable effort.
Actually once last year, they said "sure, go ahead" and we got 500 brand new machines and the cash to hire a few more employees to help with the migration.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Stewed
~~~
Squirrel
I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution.
I see a major problem with that.
Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?"
You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next".
When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different.
I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx".
It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does.
"I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout.
Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that".
The final point I want to make is this: Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power.
Stewed
~~~
Squirrel
I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution. I see a major problem with that. Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?" You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next". When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different. I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx". It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does. "I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout. Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that". The final point I want to make is this: Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power. Stewed ~~~ Squirrel