People tend to quote Moore's law as if it were fact; that the number of transistors doubles every two years. All Moore did was *observe* that every two years circa, the number of transistors did in fact double.
Because that is what CPU design was focusing on. But essentially the doubling of transistors is just a manifestation of the constant improvements of industrial CPU design; maybe in the near future the interest will veer away from that point. Also, it was observed while heading towards (but quite far from)a barrier of logarithmic complexity - you get to the point where design becomes too small, and doubling is not only not feasible, but not in the interest of design anymore.
Obviously computers will get better; they might get worse too - it has happened with many tech products. Flatscreens are just now approaching the same quality that CRTs used to have; ofc some other factors have changed, the weight for example, and well, "flatness". We don't know yet what our "flatness" will be, what element of our search for more power will be sacrificed in order to improve something which we haven't even noticed to be a defect, yet. When CRTs were king, nobody said "oh boy, it's just too big". Or at least, not for a long while, but when the CRT became perfected, people sought other areas to improve, and size came to mind.
And with that, many sacrifices were made. So if Moore's law via classic interpretation was to hold true, we would *never* sacrifice our pixel response for flatness, but we will. Thats why it's not a law, because it's open to interpretation - with the switch to LCD, and the subsequent research to get the same quality but with added features, have we taken a step back, or forward?
Well, neither - we took a step sideways. Because going forward didn't interest us anymore. And CPUs will follow suit.
Facebook
Twitter