Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't know Peter, My most exigent software is Photoshop. I have a twin 1Ghz G4 Quicksilver Mac with 1.5Gb of RAM. Whilst it is very much quicker with some software the G5 twin 2.5GHz Mac is not twice as fast as my machine on Photoshop, despite having 64-bit chips running 2.5 times faster with faster bus and discs! Frank On 26 Jan, 2005, at 19:08, Peter Dzwig wrote: > Simon, > this aint actually true: at present we see a factor of 2 or so every > 18 months (about)in processor performance. So when you move from a 500 > Mhz machine you go to a 1GHz or 2 GHz machine in about 18 months. > Order of magnitude performance changes come (very roughly) every 4 yrs > if you look at it from the level of chip performance. But if you look > at it from the overall performance perspective, so many factors change > simultaneously that effective throughput changes at least that > frequently. > > But sure as hell things are fed through on carefully pre-arranged > timetables. I can think of many cases where a chip has sat in a lab > (mine or those of others) and has been held back for more than simple > manufacturing problems. > > Peter > > > animal wrote: > >> I have to disagree,from what i was taught in university ,order of >> magnitude steps in computing are roughly 6 years apart.The >> improvements consumers can buy in that period are carefully fed in to >> the market to maximise profits. >> best regards >> simon jessurun >> amsterdam >> the netherlands >>> Having spent the majority of my life working for technology >>> manufacturing companies, I can assure you that this is absolutely >>> untrue. >>> >>> While there may be industries in which there is planned >>> obsolescence, the computer industry is not one of them. >>> >>> The issue in the computer industry is that the engineers keep coming >>> up with new stuff that is very much better than what existed a year >>> ago. If you don't sell it, then your competitors will. If you don't >>> innovate, you go out of business. Relentless innovation leaves a >>> trail of obsolete devices, but if you start feeling sorry for the >>> people who have to buy new ones, and slow down a little, they'll >>> just buy from your competitors. >>> >>> In fact, quite the opposite is true. Development in the technology >>> industry is in general hindered by a desire to be compatible with >>> the past. If the hardware and software companies didn't worry about >>> compatibility with the past, they could probably innovate 20% faster >>> than they are doing now. >>> >>> No one is forcing you to buy newer faster better cameras and >>> computers. As many people have said here, a 2.1 megapixel camera >>> still takes great pictures. So why are camera companies racing to >>> make and sell cameras with more megapixels? Because people will buy >>> them. People want them. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just market >>> demand at work. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I believe one of the basic premises of contemporary >>>> technology development is the concept of "planned >>>> obsolescence," with the deliberate goal of encouraging >>>> consumers to buy new tools on a regular basis, in >>>> lock-step with the constantly increasing profit motive >>>> of the manufacturers. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >