Has technology stagnated

[rudder]

My first video game was a big ass box that had several games on it... pong, hockey, and tennis. It was connected to a wheel with a button. Now I am the controller playing on a 46" TV... progress man!

Anyway, the space program will be back. Just wait till the Chinese start their version of the Apollo missions. As for manufacturing... check out the dreamliners that will be rolling off the assembly line... or even the updated 737's.

 

[vi edit]

I think we've hit a point where there is not really anything new that is major to invent. We are just improving on existing. Companies try to make it look like they're making new things but they're just improving an existing concept. Take apple for example, they make everything seem like it's the first of it's kind but really it's not. The ipod was not the first of it's kind, the iphone, ipad etc either. They are just improvements of existing tech.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. Largely yes...but it's not that simple. A smartphone as we have them today are incredible devices. They really are. When you think about what you can do with them vs. what cell phones even 5 years ago could do...they are amazing. It's just that they are so accessible to us we take them for granted.

Wifi routers for home users are fairly new. Sure there has been microwave and various other "wireless" methods available for decades, but consumer based WiFi in a $50 router is an amazing amount of technology that we again take for granted.

VoIP is another thing that hasn't been around all that long and now almost anyone with an internet connection can talk to somebody else on the other side of the country for next to nothing, if not entirely free.

Then you have other things like on demand access from services like Netflix or the cable providers. 15 years ago the thought of that...and at the prices we pay was unheard of.

 

[TraumaRN]

Why did it take 30+ years for the automotive industry to adopt a proven technology that was known to be superior.





See above post about fuel injection.

Trucks and cars should have been using fuel injection in the 1950s, and not waited for 30 years.

There were limited examples of automakers trying to use fuel injection in the 50s and 60s. However they lacked much in the way of control, had a hard time starting especially in cold weather and being a mechanical system initially they had difficulty metering the proper amount of fuel for engine demand. It worked well on airplanes because they generally had help starting on the ground and then once in the air, throttle changes were few and far between. In that case mechanical fuel injection works just fine.

It really took computers to allow fuel injection to flourish. Even after the government started to crack down on emissions in the 70s most auto companies just modified the carbs. It wasn't until the 80s and the advent of more rigorous electronics did FI become really popular.

Fast forward to today and the automakers are doing things with FI that they only dreamed about in the 80s...again because of computers and also because of tighter engine tolerances. They can have things like truly independent variable cam timing. Or read up on cam torque actuated variable valve timing. This is amazing stuff that people take for granted.

 

[Lash444]

You must not work a job in a technology sector.

Keeping up with the tech that hits the market isn't the easiest thing.

 

[darkewaffle]

ITS THE GAME CONSOLES HOLDING US ALL BACK

So I hear.

 

[ShawnD1]

ITS THE GAME CONSOLES HOLDING US ALL BACK

So I hear.

It totally is. I bought the GTA4 collection for PS3 and it sucks ass. The load times are horrendous, the graphics are PS2 quality, and the controls are so bad that the game is virtually unplayable. There's one mission where I'm supposed to shoot snipers on the roof, and all I see are these black/grey blobs with arrows. Wtf?? It's a 1080p television and it looks great when playing PC games. This shit is unacceptable.

 

[her209]

Where are the flying cars we were promised in Back to the Future part II?

 

[waggy]

Where are the flying cars we were promised in Back to the Future part II?

lol advertisments for cars in the 50's and 60's said by the 2000's we would have flying cars! I WANT ONE DAMNIT!

to the op. sure we were doubling processor speed. i had a 1ghz computer when they came out with 16 megs of memory. cost me a ton.

now? i have one in my pocket that is also my phone, camera etc and it cost far less.

technology is not stagnant. but it is not perhaps as fast as it was. But do we really need faster cpu's? only people that might max it out are gamers.

 

[SagaLore]

Why did you start a thread about technology stagnating, but then only write about engines and broadband as if that was the center of the technology universe?

Engines are the way they are because:

1. The entire auto industry is built around current engine designs, including mechanics and gas stations. We can only make incremental changes to current engine design. A huge improvement in MPH/KPM will need revolutionary designs, but the product will also be too expensive for most people at first, so there is reluctance to develop and market completely different engine designs. Hybrid engines are a good compromise right now, which helps build up the market and eventually we can switch over to 100% electric motors once the infrastructure is in place to support it (power stations, fuel cells, etc.).

2. I have lived in lots of rural places that still had cable, and that provided broadband. You can also get satellite if you really need to. There are wireless adapters with 3G speeds. This is not a technology issue. This is a you are a redneck living in the middle of nowhere and too cheap to deal with it issue.

 

[Texashiker]

Why did you start a thread about technology stagnating, but then only write about engines and broadband as if that was the center of the technology universe?

Regardless of what examples were used, someone would find fault with it.

 

[Bryf50]

In the 1990s CPU speeds would double every couple of years. My first computer was a packard bell 75mhz with windows 3.11 and 8 megs of memory in late 1994. In 1999 I was running a 450 mhz cpu.

And in 2004 we were running 3ghz Pentium 4s and even faster Athlon 64's with 1GB of Ram and Windows XP. In 2009 we were running 3ghz i7's with 4 cores on one chip with 4GBs of Ram and Windows 7. In 2014 we will likely be running 4ghz octa-core chips with 16GBs of ram and Windows 8.

Stagnation Not Found...

 

[Texashiker]

And in 2004 we were running 3ghz Pentium 4s <snip> In 2014 we will likely be running 4ghz octa-core chips with 16GBs of ram and Windows 8.

Stagnation Not Found...

Clock speed has not increased in the past 5 or 6 years.

2004 - 3ghz
2011 - 3 or 4 ghz

It seems that instead of increasing the core speed, intel and amd are trying to streamline their cpus to work more efficient and adding more cores and faster cache.

The cpu on my home computer is a 2.6 ghz quad core, which is slower then the 2.8 ghz single core cpu the quad core replaced.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

We were supposed to have manned colonies on Mars by now. Damn bureaucrats!

 

[waggy]

Clock speed has not increased in the past 5 or 6 years.

2004 - 3ghz
2011 - 3 or 4 ghz

It seems that instead of increasing the core speed, intel and amd are trying to streamline their cpus to work more efficient and adding more cores and faster cache.

The cpu on my home computer is a 2.6 ghz quad core, which is slower then the 2.8 ghz single core cpu the quad core replaced.

lol

/facepalm

you can't go by ghz alone...

 

[vi edit]

And in 2004 we were running 3ghz Pentium 4s and even faster Athlon 64's with 1GB of Ram and Windows XP. In 2009 we were running 3ghz i7's with 4 cores on one chip with 4GBs of Ram and Windows 7. In 2014 we will likely be running 4ghz octa-core chips with 16GBs of ram and Windows 8. Stagnation Not Found...

And other than some higher frame rates in video games what has that added horsepower really got us in meaningful benefits? I still get along just fine with my 5 year old 1.7ghz core 2.

Not really trying to be argumentive here. I'm just saying that speed for the sake of speed and more CPU's really hasn't revolutionized the PC market.

 

[polarmystery]

Clock speed has not increased in the past 5 or 6 years.

2004 - 3ghz
2011 - 3 or 4 ghz

It seems that instead of increasing the core speed, intel and amd are trying to streamline their cpus to work more efficient and adding more cores and faster cache.

The cpu on my home computer is a 2.6 ghz quad core, which is slower then the 2.8 ghz single core cpu the quad core replaced.

Read about computer architecture and this will solve your inquiry.

 

[SagaLore]

Clock speed has not increased in the past 5 or 6 years.

What does raw clock speed have to do with technological improvements?


I think the problem here is that technological advancements are no longer macro nor even micro, but now nano. You can't see all the advancements, but they are there and helping you. You just take them for granted.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Clock speed has not increased in the past 5 or 6 years.

2004 - 3ghz
2011 - 3 or 4 ghz

It seems that instead of increasing the core speed, intel and amd are trying to streamline their cpus to work more efficient and adding more cores and faster cache.

The cpu on my home computer is a 2.6 ghz quad core, which is slower then the 2.8 ghz single core cpu the quad core replaced.

do you know what a core is or why 4 of them would be an advantage of 1?

 

[Saint Nick]

I think that society is too focused on keeping things the same right now. With government interfering with everything, it's no wonder we aren't making wild advancements in technology.

 

[Squisher]

Physics. The only laws that are really hard to break.

Break the Law

 

[waggy]

And other than some higher frame rates in video games what has that added horsepower really got us in meaningful benefits? I still get along just fine with my 5 year old 1.7ghz core 2.

Not really trying to be argumentive here. I'm just saying that speed for the sake of speed and more CPU's really hasn't revolutionized the PC market.

i agree.

considering how the majority use the computer. for email, web use, or a work environment. Most would be fine with a 1ghz machine.

gamers are about the only people i can think of that max out a machine. even then its getting silly.

 

[polarmystery]

And other than some higher frame rates in video games what has that added horsepower really got us in meaningful benefits? I still get along just fine with my 5 year old 1.7ghz core 2.

Not really trying to be argumentive here. I'm just saying that speed for the sake of speed and more CPU's really hasn't revolutionized the PC market.

Agreed. Most of the processing power has come in the form of workload/throughput rather than speed alone.

 

[epidemis]

Where is the new technology?

The post WW2 years were probably the fastest in terms of progress. Most noticeable was the booming automation and later computer revolution. In the last 10 years or so I suppose there haven't been a revolution in technology, more like incremental gains.

Where are my drugs that will produce an euphoria without any negative downsides?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

I kinda agree actually... The only thing that has improved tremendously over the last 10 years is the internet... I love how you can download anything in an instant with todays speeds

In terms of audiovisuals, the last 5 or so years have been craptacular honestly, but Im guessing its all about diminishing returns... Ever since 3d acceleration and shaders, everything has been the same, just with higher polygon counts now thanks to tesselation

I also find it disturbing how discrete sound card market completely vanished... I remember the days I thought my sound blaster live was the shit, and now everyone uses onboard audio heh

I guess there isnt much we can do when we are reaching the limits of our senses, there is only so much we can see or hear, etc

 

[Elbryn]

Physics. The only laws that are really hard to break.

maybe... physics is a bunch of algorithms based on observations to model and therefore predict those observations. once something new is found that breaks the rule, an exception is made and a new algorithm is sought out to do the same.

just because modern physics says that teleportation is not possible, it very well may be under a set of conditions that we've not yet discovered.

are we at a state where the vast majority of easy discoveries are found? maybe. but all it takes is one breakthrough advance in physics and we may find ourselves in a whole new realm of unknown to be modeled and taken advantage off. who knows?