Re: Print to SHR

["Payton Byrd" <plbyrd@bellsouth.no.spam.net>]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message ap-dnce4UZBwU3DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com">news:ap-dnce4UZBwU3DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com...
> William Garber wrote:
> While Moore's "Law" has pretty much petered out for improvements
> of single-thread processor performance

Evidently you haven't seen a Core 2 Duo in action.  It's about 40 to 180% faster than the Netburst architecture at the same clock speed per thread.

> the hard disk guys continue
> to out-run Moore with density and speed improvements.

Moore's Law just says that every 24 months the size of transisters will be halved.  This has held true and continues to hold true.  Performance does not scale directly with feature size because the interconnects between the features is already a minimal portion of the time it takes the electrons to move around the CPU.  Also, Intel's 45nm process uses some new materials that they say will be good down to 15nm.  Below that you're into nanotechnology and the carbon nanotube industry is already churning out usable chips for tech samples and there are even quantum computing systems starting to come online through carbon nanotube technology.  No, Moore's law isn't slowing down at all, it's actually accelerating considering the recent advances in nanotechnology.

> 
> The silicon run was good while it lasted, but we're having to
> work hard for the last order of magnitude these days.  As the
> rate of improvement slows and the required capital investment
> soars, the whole "wait 'til next year if you can't afford it"
> mentality is due for a sea change.

Sorry, I just don't see this.  The reality of the market is much different.  AMD/IBM has managed to accelerate their product process generations because of materials advances and will have 45nm products in production on store shelves less than 2 years after their introduction of 65nm products.

> 
> If it weren't for massive consolidation and the cost reductions
> that come from economies of scale, things would be even dryer in
> silicon valley.

This is actually a function of Moore's Law.  This is also what killed Commodore as they didn't invest into MOS Technologies as they should have then they got left behind.  At the end they were depending on a 12 year old computer with a 20 year old CPU that was still manufactured as if it were 1982 all over again.