No, this is transistor size. The oxide thickness they are talking about is 15 angstroms, which is far smaller than 0.07 microns. Current oxide thicknesses for modern processes are on the order of 100 angstroms or less (which is 0.01 microns or 10 nm).
These smaller processes are great...assuming anybody can figure out how to use them. The problem is, as processes get smaller, the actual chip stays the same size (or sometimes gets bigger). The problem with this is as processes get smaller, so do the wires on the chip. A wire of the same length as in a previous chip would be slower in the new chip because of the reduced driver sizes, thinner wires (increased resistance), and the relatively unchanging capacitance. (The capacitance per unit length stays about the same at smaller sizes because of fringing effects.) This can make device performance very low, especially if you have wires running from one end of the chip to the other, not to mention more susceptible to noise. There are ways to combat these problems (like inserting inverters periodcally along long wires to reduce noise and improve speed--Intel actually has a requirement for this, although it does chew up more power), but I don't think anybody has found a way to get the full performance out of what we currently have. However, I must say that getting rid of the x86 architechture will certainly help....
Phew, for a moment I thought the PC Boards in my computer would lower my intellegence. Glad they were talking about something else. Then again, this really doesn't surprise me too much; I live near Los Angeles and I think that if you can feel the air crunch between your teeth, the air has stuff in it that can really screw you up.
Instead of getting something you can't fit through the front door (and would require rewiring your house just so you can turn it on), I would ask for a SuperG!
I was thinking about how this whole thing would work, and I was wondering why anybody would even want broadcast HDTV. Let's face it: most people I know that want a really high quality television picture are using either cable or satellite. Most people I know don't care at all: they only care that the picture looks decent. If the US version of HDTV as it is currently proposed goes through, satellite and cable operators would have major problems trying to implement the system, as satellite systems would need an increase in bandwidth, and cable systems would need other upgrades, such as a way to add commercials to the video stream, etc.
Having said that, I think the current NTSC broadcast system should be left as is, as it has been shown that the current HDTV system would be harder to receive for most people. It should be the satellite and cable companies that handle the high definition variant of TV. Basically what I propose is the following:
Television stations would still broadcast their standard NTSC signal, just as they are now. However, they would also transmit out via satellite a digital, high definition version of their signal. (I think some stations already send out a copy of their signal via satellite so cable companies can get a cleaner version of the signal than the broadcast version.)
Cable and satellite companies would then receive this digital signal and make any necessary adjustments (such as adding commercials.) They could then send out their signal in digital form using whatever method and frequency they want. At the same time, cable companies may also want to send an NTSC version on the cable as well, for older TV sets.
On the home end, the digital signal would be received by some version of a set-top box. Now here's the only place a standard in this whole thing would be required: The set-top box and the TV would need to be connected together in some fashion that would have little or no signal degradation. This interface would only need to handle one channel (like the A/V inputs on the back of your TV) and could be either analog (which would have to be set up to minimize noise and distortion, shouldn't be too difficult) or digital (which would require some sort of encryption or copy protection). An analog link would probably be better, as it could inherently prevent high quality copies to be made. A digital signal could provide a slightly cleaner picture, it could still be copied, even with encryption. (DeCSS ring a bell, anyone?)
Either way, HDTV should be something for cable and satellite TV, not for broadcast TV (especially with reception problems). I seriously doubt people are going to be setting up antennas outside their houses just to get HDTV (assuming they can set up an antenna-- most rental housing such as apartments specifically restrict people from setting up outdoor antennas). Right now, I just hope that the FCC realizes this current HDTV plan is doomed for failure as all it is going to do is piss a lot of people off.
From the miniscule amount of information available on it in the article, it seems like this thing is basically a PC with only a processor, motherboard, 3d video card, memory, game controller interface, and some variant of Windows CE stored in ROM or Flash. Whatever it really is, it doesn't sound any more powerful than any current PC available today.
I would be willing to bet that part of the advantage Microsoft will be trying to use here is to make this box run all of the current PC games for Windows. If this is true, it means it would already have a wide range of available games -- even before this thing is released! Microsoft would not have to commission more programmers to write games for it, as the PC industry would already be doing this. Basically, Microsoft is creating a box that would bring PC games into the console game market. If this were not true, I am not sure how Microsoft would ever expect this thing to become popular, as there would be a lack of games because everybody would be programming for Dreamcast and Playstation 2.
Either way, I am kind of surprised something like this hasn't been done before, as it seems relatively simple to do. I just wonder what a BSOD would look like on this thing...
I think it should also be mentioned that not all AC posts are useless or bad. I would have to say that about half of the AC posts are of about the same quality as posts made by logged in users. Let's face it: there is probably a very good reason for ACs here on Slashdot, it is probably so that 1)people without a login (or too lazy to login) can still participate in discussions, and 2)some of us may want to say something that could could be detrimental to ourselves, possibly even costing jobs or worse.
I am not saying something shouldn't be done about ACs, as the other half of their posts tend to be plain B.S., like this "First Post" business. It's stuff like that that gives ACs a bad name. I think if somebody wants to make a really bad post and they can't put their name on it, it ought to be deleted and never be allowed to appear on Slashdot in the first place. If somebody wants to login and make a bad post, at least that person can be reprimanded as appropriate. Basically, Slashdot should have the capability to moderate AC posts that are clearly out of bounds to nonexistent.
An autononomous robot would be much more complicated: you would need some sort of sensor input so you would know how and when (and where) to attack, you would need some sort of on-board computer that can handle the inputs, and you would need to interface all of this to all the motors, solenoids, etc. I would guess this would add about $500 (US) to the price of a robot. However, I would think there would be some interest in this; it probably would not be too difficult to add in an autonomous category at something like Robot Wars or Battle Bots. It would probably be much more exciting to watch autonomous robots doing battle, as there would be a new level for error: poorly written code and failing sensors.
However, wouldn't it be interesting to be able to see something like: "Robot running Linux beats robot running Windows 2000"?
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is transistor size. The oxide thickness they are talking about is 15 angstroms, which is far smaller than 0.07 microns. Current oxide thicknesses for modern processes are on the order of 100 angstroms or less (which is 0.01 microns or 10 nm).
These smaller processes are great...assuming anybody can figure out how to use them. The problem is, as processes get smaller, the actual chip stays the same size (or sometimes gets bigger). The problem with this is as processes get smaller, so do the wires on the chip. A wire of the same length as in a previous chip would be slower in the new chip because of the reduced driver sizes, thinner wires (increased resistance), and the relatively unchanging capacitance. (The capacitance per unit length stays about the same at smaller sizes because of fringing effects.) This can make device performance very low, especially if you have wires running from one end of the chip to the other, not to mention more susceptible to noise. There are ways to combat these problems (like inserting inverters periodcally along long wires to reduce noise and improve speed--Intel actually has a requirement for this, although it does chew up more power), but I don't think anybody has found a way to get the full performance out of what we currently have.
However, I must say that getting rid of the x86 architechture will certainly help....
Phew, for a moment I thought the PC Boards in my computer would lower my intellegence. Glad they were talking about something else.
Then again, this really doesn't surprise me too much; I live near Los Angeles and I think that if you can feel the air crunch between your teeth, the air has stuff in it that can really screw you up.
Instead of getting something you can't fit through the front door (and would require rewiring your house just so you can turn it on), I would ask for a SuperG!
I was thinking about how this whole thing would work, and I was wondering why anybody would even want broadcast HDTV. Let's face it: most people I know that want a really high quality television picture are using either cable or satellite. Most people I know don't care at all: they only care that the picture looks decent. If the US version of HDTV as it is currently proposed goes through, satellite and cable operators would have major problems trying to implement the system, as satellite systems would need an increase in bandwidth, and cable systems would need other upgrades, such as a way to add commercials to the video stream, etc.
Having said that, I think the current NTSC broadcast system should be left as is, as it has been shown that the current HDTV system would be harder to receive for most people. It should be the satellite and cable companies that handle the high definition variant of TV. Basically what I propose is the following:
Television stations would still broadcast their standard NTSC signal, just as they are now. However, they would also transmit out via satellite a digital, high definition version of their signal. (I think some stations already send out a copy of their signal via satellite so cable companies can get a cleaner version of the signal than the broadcast version.)
Cable and satellite companies would then receive this digital signal and make any necessary adjustments (such as adding commercials.) They could then send out their signal in digital form using whatever method and frequency they want. At the same time, cable companies may also want to send an NTSC version on the cable as well, for older TV sets.
On the home end, the digital signal would be received by some version of a set-top box. Now here's the only place a standard in this whole thing would be required: The set-top box and the TV would need to be connected together in some fashion that would have little or no signal degradation. This interface would only need to handle one channel (like the A/V inputs on the back of your TV) and could be either analog (which would have to be set up to minimize noise and distortion, shouldn't be too difficult) or digital (which would require some sort of encryption or copy protection). An analog link would probably be better, as it could inherently prevent high quality copies to be made. A digital signal could provide a slightly cleaner picture, it could still be copied, even with encryption. (DeCSS ring a bell, anyone?)
Either way, HDTV should be something for cable and satellite TV, not for broadcast TV (especially with reception problems). I seriously doubt people are going to be setting up antennas outside their houses just to get HDTV (assuming they can set up an antenna-- most rental housing such as apartments specifically restrict people from setting up outdoor antennas). Right now, I just hope that the FCC realizes this current HDTV plan is doomed for failure as all it is going to do is piss a lot of people off.
From the miniscule amount of information available on it in the article, it seems like this thing is basically a PC with only a processor, motherboard, 3d video card, memory, game controller interface, and some variant of Windows CE stored in ROM or Flash. Whatever it really is, it doesn't sound any more powerful than any current PC available today.
I would be willing to bet that part of the advantage Microsoft will be trying to use here is to make this box run all of the current PC games for Windows. If this is true, it means it would already have a wide range of available games -- even before this thing is released! Microsoft would not have to commission more programmers to write games for it, as the PC industry would already be doing this. Basically, Microsoft is creating a box that would bring PC games into the console game market. If this were not true, I am not sure how Microsoft would ever expect this thing to become popular, as there would be a lack of games because everybody would be programming for Dreamcast and Playstation 2.
Either way, I am kind of surprised something like this hasn't been done before, as it seems relatively simple to do. I just wonder what a BSOD would look like on this thing...
I think it should also be mentioned that not all AC posts are useless or bad. I would have to say that about half of the AC posts are of about the same quality as posts made by logged in users. Let's face it: there is probably a very good reason for ACs here on Slashdot, it is probably so that 1)people without a login (or too lazy to login) can still participate in discussions, and 2)some of us may want to say something that could could be detrimental to ourselves, possibly even costing jobs or worse.
I am not saying something shouldn't be done about ACs, as the other half of their posts tend to be plain B.S., like this "First Post" business. It's stuff like that that gives ACs a bad name. I think if somebody wants to make a really bad post and they can't put their name on it, it ought to be deleted and never be allowed to appear on Slashdot in the first place. If somebody wants to login and make a bad post, at least that person can be reprimanded as appropriate. Basically, Slashdot should have the capability to moderate AC posts that are clearly out of bounds to nonexistent.
An autononomous robot would be much more complicated: you would need some sort of sensor input so you would know how and when (and where) to attack, you would need some sort of on-board computer that can handle the inputs, and you would need to interface all of this to all the motors, solenoids, etc. I would guess this would add about $500 (US) to the price of a robot. However, I would think there would be some interest in this; it probably would not be too difficult to add in an autonomous category at something like Robot Wars or Battle Bots. It would probably be much more exciting to watch autonomous robots doing battle, as there would be a new level for error: poorly written code and failing sensors.
However, wouldn't it be interesting to be able to see something like: "Robot running Linux beats robot running Windows 2000"?
Now that could be a battle of the OSs!