Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter Thanks what would be a better way to put it maybe, as you know better i,m sure , is that major advances come in discrete steps which are plannable thinks like using shorter wave length radiation for lithography and the like.Those gives at least an order of magnitude improvement otherwise it,s not economical to do. Then the years in between are spend offering the public improvements in a marketing orchestrated way. simon > 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 >