God bless Moore's Law

[FeathersMcGraw]

So, I was doing some (late) spring cleaning, and I happened across the old order invoices for parts for my PC. Way back in September '99 when I boldly leapt to the (duller side of) the bleeding edge, my (retail) slot A Athlon 600 MHz cost a mere $535 from TCWO. That's only $100 more than I paid (at the time) for my 19" monitor (ViewSonic PS790), and vaguely $400 more than either my motherboard (FIC SD11 - $159) or 300W power supply (PCP&C - $89).

I can now get a processor three times as fast and a nice DDR motherboard for about $200 less than I paid for the processor alone. Guess it's not so hard to justify getting a new XP 2200+ now that Hammer's been pushed out.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Moore's Law is both good and bad. Sure, the constant upgrade cycle pushes prices on a neverending downward spiral, but it also traps you on the new parts treadmill. Great, so processors are half the price they were a year ago and 1/10th of what they were 3 years ago, but you NEED a new processor. Cars don't get cheaper, but they also last 10 years, you're not being forced to upgrade your vehicle as often as it's necessary to upgrade your PC. Really, other than broadband, are most people any better off with their new fast hardware than they were with a Pentium 100 and Windows 95? They've gone through at least 2 upgrade cycles in that time and have a machine that's not noticably better at the most common tasks like word processing, email or web surfing. If you're not a gamer, video editor or somebody else who needs a great deal of processing power to handle graphics, complex spreadsheets, compiling or the like, faster machines are of no real-world benefit. That Pentium 4 2.x gig processor with 512 megs of RAM might be really cool, but if you're sitting in a chat room on AOL, checking your Hotmail account or reading the forums at AT, you'd be better off if there had been no upgrade cycle and you were still on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM with all that cash left in your pocket.

 

[yakko]

I still have the receipt where I payed $185 for a 128 meg stick of SDram and $225 for a K6-2 300.

 

[Rallispec]

Originally posted by: yakko
I still have the receipt where I payed $185 for a 128 meg stick of SDram and $225 for a K6-2 300.

yep, im sure i could dig up some old reciepts too.. sucks. who knows what will be availe in another 18 months. :disgust:

 

[Geekbabe]

The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

 

[yakko]

Originally posted by: baffled2
The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

Well I can be fast and cheap and a few of my girlfriends actually said I was good. So what time should I come over?

 

[tw1164]

I was wondering today,what the normal upgrade cycle was for a AT member. I'm looking to upgrade my MB and cpu (see rig for current). I got my current about a year ago. I'm using pretty much the same programs I did last year, why does my computer "seem" to get slower? Is it becuase I know that there are faster computers then mine? Either way I'm still upgrading my computer soon

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: yakko

Originally posted by: baffled2
The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

Well I can be fast and cheap and a few of my girlfriends actually said I was good. So what time should I come over?

Hahaha,you'll need to check with my agent

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Moore's Law is both good and bad. Sure, the constant upgrade cycle pushes prices on a neverending downward spiral, but it also traps you on the new parts treadmill. Great, so processors are half the price they were a year ago and 1/10th of what they were 3 years ago, but you NEED a new processor. Cars don't get cheaper, but they also last 10 years, you're not being forced to upgrade your vehicle as often as it's necessary to upgrade your PC. Really, other than broadband, are most people any better off with their new fast hardware than they were with a Pentium 100 and Windows 95? They've gone through at least 2 upgrade cycles in that time and have a machine that's not noticably better at the most common tasks like word processing, email or web surfing. If you're not a gamer, video editor or somebody else who needs a great deal of processing power to handle graphics, complex spreadsheets, compiling or the like, faster machines are of no real-world benefit. That Pentium 4 2.x gig processor with 512 megs of RAM might be really cool, but if you're sitting in a chat room on AOL, checking your Hotmail account or reading the forums at AT, you'd be better off if there had been no upgrade cycle and you were still on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM with all that cash left in your pocket.

have you ever tried checking hotmail recently (they've made a few change over the years) with a pentium with 16 megs of RAM? it ain't pretty.

old computers seemed fine when we were using them, but whenever i go back and have to use one for whatever reason, i always wonder how we put up with it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: baffled2
The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

more more more? i think thats engineer's saying.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: baffled2
The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

more more more? i think thats engineer's saying.

That's funny,I thought it was Billy Idol's

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: gopunk


have you ever tried checking hotmail recently (they've made a few change over the years) with a pentium with 16 megs of RAM? it ain't pretty.

old computers seemed fine when we were using them, but whenever i go back and have to use one for whatever reason, i always wonder how we put up with it.

That's exactly my point. Computers got faster, so MSN imposes their bloatware on the web and you're stuck with an email server that requires a high-end machine to operate properly. No constant upgrade treadmill, not mega-fast machines and Hotmail would not have turned into a javascript monster. Does the current Hotmail that requires a high-end machine offer any benefit whatsoever when compared to the older Hotmail that would be accessable on a 486? You're stuck in a moebius loop of:
faster computers -> can support higher complexity
higher complexity -> added because the faster computers can handle it
faster computers -> things just got more complex
back to square 1.

Hotmail, AOL, most games or anything else have not really improved much when you get right down it. It's just eye-candy without much function that's added for the sole purpose of being addable. It's addable because fast machines can handle it. If there were not faster machines there would be less glitter, but mostly the same functionality and we would not be stuck on a constant upgrade cycle to retain that functionality. Hotmail is mail. It's HTML-based. Is there anything there that shouldn't be able to work properly on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM? Then why doesn't it work on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM. If all anyone had was a Pentium with 16megs of RAM, then Hotmail would work on that machine, it would work just as well as it does now on a faster machine, and people would have the money spent on upgrades still in their pockets.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: gopunk


have you ever tried checking hotmail recently (they've made a few change over the years) with a pentium with 16 megs of RAM? it ain't pretty.

old computers seemed fine when we were using them, but whenever i go back and have to use one for whatever reason, i always wonder how we put up with it.

That's exactly my point. Computers got faster, so MSN imposes their bloatware on the web and you're stuck with an email server that requires a high-end machine to operate properly. No constant upgrade treadmill, not mega-fast machines and Hotmail would not have turned into a javascript monster. Does the current Hotmail that requires a high-end machine offer any benefit whatsoever when compared to the older Hotmail that would be accessable on a 486? You're stuck in a moebius loop of:
faster computers -> can support higher complexity
higher complexity -> added because the faster computers can handle it
faster computers -> things just got more complex
back to square 1.

Hotmail, AOL, most games or anything else have not really improved much when you get right down it. It's just eye-candy without much function that's added for the sole purpose of being addable. It's addable because fast machines can handle it. If there were not faster machines there would be less glitter, but mostly the same functionality and we would not be stuck on a constant upgrade cycle to retain that functionality. Hotmail is mail. It's HTML-based. Is there anything there that shouldn't be able to work properly on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM? Then why doesn't it work on a Pentium with 16 megs of RAM. If all anyone had was a Pentium with 16megs of RAM, then Hotmail would work on that machine, it would work just as well as it does now on a faster machine, and people would have the money spent on upgrades still in their pockets.

it's not quite the eutopia you imagine... suppose consumers did fragment, with some of them upgrading (because gamers care a lot about graphics), and some of them not. eventually you would begin to see problems anyways.... consumers who did upgrade would build website that can't be rendered quickly on the slower machines, etc. software companies would still build software that can't be run on the slower computers (because they need to be better than their competitors)

furthermore, with faster computers becoming more common, you see the usage habits of consumers changing. you're right, all the common person did before was use wordperfect and play solitaire. but now, people burn cds, watch movies, etc. these aren't geeks or anything, just normal people...

 

[Harvey]

From Webopedia.com

The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on ll=integrated circuits]http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/integrated_circuit_IC.html[/l] had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades.

OTOH, I'm convinced that Windows occasionally stores my data in RAF -- Random Access Forgettory.

 

[JellyBaby]

Heh I can remember owning PCs with only a handful of MHz and paying an assload for them. It's crazy!

The young take note: this is what you can enjoy when hard working individuals are allowed to trade freely with the world without oppressive government regulation and taxation. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[yakko]

Originally posted by: baffled2

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: baffled2
The only problem with Moore's law is that it exists in the same universe as Baffled2's "More Principal" if it's good I want more,if it's fast I want more and if it's cheaper I want to buy More of em...

more more more? i think thats engineer's saying.

That's funny,I thought it was Billy Idol's

It is but only in the midnight hour.

 

[AvesPKS]

That's funny,I thought it was Billy Idol's

That's funny, I thought it was Andrea True Connection's.