Why We Need a Second Moore's Law 254
Roland Piquepaille writes "In its April issue, Wired Magazine argues that we need a second Moore's law, this time about overall efficiencies of our computers and other electronic devices. The subtitle of the article summarizes it: "If we don't do something about increasing battery life, we're toast." Michael S. Malone, the author, says that the first Moore's law is endangered, not because the semiconductor industry cannot build new generation of chips, but because we will not be able to provide them with enough power. And he contends that the problem arises from the fact that we are using more and more wireless devices, which obviously are not connected to a plug. This overview contains selected excerpts of this eye-opening article."
It's funny, laugh. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's funny, laugh. (Score:2)
What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
This is such low quality news, it's depressing. It's the kind of news that's formulaic: "what can I write about, oh, I know, let's take an age old thing, like e=mc^2, or Moore's law because computer geeks prefer that one, and then use it to spin story on an age old problem ... energy conservation".
yay.
Brilliant really.
Moore's law, and the reason for its brilliance is that the guy was so right... it's that for 30 years,
Re:What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Increase battery life? (Score:2, Funny)
What's wrong, are engineers getting too much sex?
Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:5, Funny)
The more I hear about power and energy issues and American obesity issues, the more I think we'd be served well by installing some kind of human power generator factory similar to a gym, where maybe people going on lots of exercise bikes could charge up portable batteries or something.
I mean Hell, $50 for a new cellphone battery when yours craps out, or two hours on the bike with a better rechargable...
People with too much energy and electronic devices that need energy. There has to be a way to make it work together.
Ok... I just reread that, and I've officially been awake way too long.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:4, Funny)
If we could just find a way to utilize all that hot air in D.C. into some kind of homo sapiens-thermal power, we'd be all set.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do I smell a new business model here?
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I want someone to invent for me? A stationary bicycle that's nothing but the pedals and some sort of mechanism for adjusting the resistance, that can be placed under a standard sized desk. I'm the Queen of multi-tasking, and it would be great if I could somehow give my feet something to do, especially something physically constructive, while my hands and brain were working on other things.
I'd make it myself but I'm too busy drawing and don't really know anything about making stuff like that.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:3)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Good thing I work at home and I'm self-employed. =)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Well I dunno, if you angled it just right it could probably work. Even if they had to engineer a special chair for it, I think it could work. I just wish I could get more exercise without having to sacrifice being able to read online or edit my webpages or draw comics or whatever. I work pretty much constantly and get bored exercising, it's not the physical part of it, it's that I can't well multitask.
I should think the gears would be adjustible somehow so you could decide the level of workout you wanted.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
all you'd do is cause yourself some kind of injury.
exercise is only worthwhile if you have a warm-up, then at least 10 mins of sustained higher heart rate, then a warm down.
what you're describing might make you feel better about yourself but apart from possible minor placebo effects will do nothing to make you healthier, and will probably damage yourself.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:5, Informative)
1) The energy produced by pedaling a bicycle with idle resistance is relatively low. And the resistance required to produce real power makes the pedaling uncomfortably difficult. Ever ridden the "light cycle" at a kid's museum -- the bike attached to a lightbulb? To get the equivalent glow of a 40W bulb, you have to pedal like a madman. Your processor alone expects up to 2 times that.
2) You'd have to connect the pedal portion to the chair, or it wouldn't be stable. Which means you've got a chair with a 4 foot extension on the front of it, plus pedals. Not many people want that in their computer room.
3) Sweat is inevitable, and that leads to smelly, sticky keyboards, chairs, and rooms in general.
If you want to work out while computing, get yourself a dumbbell. There's a lot of evidence that shows a good lifting session is more effective at burning calories and of course building muscle than a low impact cardio workout. Of course, the best solution of all is both...so spend a half hour in front of the PC, working on your arms, shoulders, back and chest, then take a nice half hour jog. I guarantee you'll solve some of your computer problems while you're running, too.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
If you want to work out while computing, get yourself a dumbbell. There's a lot of evidence that shows a good lifting session is more effective at burning calories and of course building muscle than a low impact cardio workout.
Actually, it's funny you mention it, because I've been doing that a little over a year now. I just want something for my feet to do so they don't feel left out and get some exercise too. =)
The bicycle doesn't have to necessarily light lightbulbs or even work up a sweat. Just som
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Like this device? (Score:3, Informative)
Such devices have been available for decades, litterally. This one is way fancier than the one that was at home during my childhood, but for 59.90 (VAT incl.) that's just a steal.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Matrix (Score:2)
Can anyone say Matrix.
Re:Matrix (Score:2)
Yeah, but didn't people pretty much debunk the idea behind the Matrix during all that speculation about the sequels, during which I coincidentally lost all desire to watch them?
I'm thinking more of a way to utilize kinetic energy and translate it into stored power. =)
Real Issue is Storage (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not with the abiliuty to generate the power but a way to efficiently store it with something that is at a reasonable size. Batteries/Power Cells are not moving at a very fast pace compared to the rest of the industry. We can generate all the power in the world but we don't have a small cost effective way to store it yet.
Re:Real Issue is Storage (Score:2)
But what if it found a way to use kinetic energy like, say, walking, to constantly recharge itself? For something very low-powered like a cellphone on standby mode, perhaps something like that may eventually be possible...
Re:Real Issue is Storage (Score:2)
Re:Real Issue is Storage (Score:2)
That's what the under-desk bicycles are for! I'm a genius. Thank you, and don't forget to tip your waitstaff. I'll be here all week.
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2)
What's a hamser?
=)Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:2, Funny)
My hampster's got lots of p. That's why i'm always cleaning out her damn cage.
Billy you listening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. When processor speeds and memory was low the industry did their best to fit what they could in the limited space. Now that we have more room we are being lazy and only concentrating on making things "larger than life" instead of faster and smaller.
We should really start to concentrate on making the software run best under what we currently have. I know that Intel and Kingston wouldn't exactly be happy but our pockets and our grid would.
Steve's been listening for awhile... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't bother arguing speed, saying that the powerbook is years behind in MHz, etc. The powerbook is just better optimized to use less power and run longer.
Re:Steve's been listening for awhile... (Score:5, Funny)
(swear to god if any of you make ignorant comments about being able to replace the battery I will revoke your internet licenses)
Re:Steve's been listening for awhile... (Score:3, Informative)
The G4 isn't the only low-power chip on the market. There are plenty of Crusoe and Pentium-M powered notebooks.
Having a lot of something is no excuse to waste it (Score:5, Insightful)
Making more efficient software benefits users _now_, instead of in 5 years when computers have gotten faster and new power sources have been invented, and new software will have been invented that needs even faster computers. Having a lot of CPU power is no excuse for wasting it.
Re:Having a lot of something is no excuse to waste (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventually you acquire a low-level "feel" for what the machine's doing, and that's how you're able to fix problems later
Better methods needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't count how many times I heard a professor say "don't optimize", "memory is cheap".
When everyone is more worried about making thier code pretty instead of efficient, well we get what we've got. Feh.Re:Better methods needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Billy you listening? (Score:2)
'sarcasm
And that's why Java is so usefull
Re:Billy you listening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Observation... (Score:5, Insightful)
re: observation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Observation... (Score:2)
It just describe the how the semiconductor industry is able to balance increase in computing power, the associated cost of this increase and the return on investement.
Someone could probably double processor speed every 12 month instead of 18 but it will cost more and the ROI will probably not lead to profitability.
Re:Observation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Observation... (Score:2)
Don't you think that a 17 inch wide screen backlit, P4/Athlon 64 CPU running at high speed with a gig or so of ram draws a few amps?
Almost every new part that is added into a laptop these days draws power, and more power is required for that part to run faster.
No new law, just action! (Score:3, Insightful)
A small observation... (Score:3, Funny)
With the author pointing out subtle technical details like that, wouldn't this article be more appropriate for a more electronics-savvy audience than Slashdot?
Re:A small observation... (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder his battery is dead, he never found the cord you put in the wall to recharge it.
Usability (Score:2, Offtopic)
My laptop is in need of renewal - its a 1Ghz Dell. The replacement will be a 3Ghz-ish of similar style - with more HD, more RAM etc...
I can bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that within a couple of weeks it'll be pissing me off as much as this piece of crap I'm typing on.
Usability is the key - I for one welcome the new Moore's Law
Re:Usability (Score:2)
Re:Usability (Score:2)
Pssst... The G4 isn't the only low power CPU out there.
Re:Usability (Score:2)
Why? What can't it do that a 3GHz can? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm honestly just curious. I have a 1GHz Powerbook, and the comments about it being "slow" or "underpowered" are met by me with either wordless grins or just indifference. It does what I need it to, and quickly.
Since you're sure you'll be unsatisfied with the new, "faster" machine soon, why not save the cash?
Re:Usability (Score:2)
The trackpad is bust and the battery is a big shagged aswell. Also - the shift key no longer says SHIFT - it says S t which is just embarrassing.
I dont REALLY need a new machine - but its easier than trying to clean this one up enough to be quick enough to be fun in the short term. Lazy lazy lazy!
Re:Usability (Score:2)
>
>I can bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that within a couple of weeks it'll be pissing me off as much as this piece of crap I'm typing on.
So if you're happy with the laptop, I give you a pinch of shit, and if you're unhappy with the laptop, you give me a pound of shit? Nice odds, but I don't have much use for a pound of shit.
On the other hand, one small
Re:Usability (Score:3, Informative)
Its a quality old North East England expression meaning 'a surefire bet'. i.e. you are inviting bets of a pinch of shit - for which you are willing to pay out a . Which is a bet I'd take - if it werent for the fact that in the act of pinching the shit I'd get shit in my fingernails. That said - a is worth about 1.9 of your american $s these days - so it might be an attractive deal to some of you unemployed
NEED a second Moore's law? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds a little dodgy to me. This statement seems to imply that a law is 'needed' to fix a current problem (i.e. batteries not keeping up with processor power). But why would some contrived 'law' do anything to solve this problem? After all, the original Moore's law was a prediction - no more, no less. No one has ever actually been guided by it.
I feel that putting the problem forth in this way is just clouding the issue.
Re:NEED a second Moore's law? (Score:3, Insightful)
i wonder who dubbed Moore's prediction a law
Marketroids, the same life form that brought us the dotcom phenomenon.
Peace and Love (Score:2, Funny)
He said more than a famous phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
So while many here will complain his prediction was flawed because he didn't consider so many other things, remember he actually had a lot more in mind than just regularly doubling speed.
Improving "external" system efficiencies (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the battery power does not have to be solved by only "internal" system efficiency, but also by "external" system efficiency.
What if the places to charge our devices become pervasive, and just like you get can find a gas station almost everywhere you seem to be running out of gas, you should be able to find a place to charge your batteries.
Of course this is easeir said than done. The "external" system is developed well for vehicles running on gas - but it is not well developed for vehicles on electric power. That is why electric cars lag so far behind ....
Anyway, the crux of my post is that the system efficiencies not have to improve internally in the "super"devices, but also externally to the devices. .
S'mores Law (Score:5, Funny)
Springs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Springs (Score:2)
However, if you can build a clockspring generator mechanism that is an external power source as you suggested, then it makes more sense. Mind you, I do worry it could end up being fairly large and awkward to carry around if you need it to charge a laptop battery.
Damn politicians!!! (Score:3, Funny)
We need less laws not moore! Let the industry regulate itself.
I can't believe that anyone would think moore gubmint regulation and red tape would make computers more efficient!!
Unbelievabe!
Moron's law (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine the board room at Intel where the chairman is yelling, "The 3rd quarter numbers suggest we aren't going to make Moore's law this year! I want people to double their efforts -- cancel lunch until further notice!"
I can guarantee that if wired magazine invents a new moore's law, it is going to have zero effect on technology. Anyways, Moore's law is based on an observation, maybe we should look at the growth of power requirements and fit it to that.
I suggest we call the wired law: Moron's Law
Fuel Cells. (Score:2)
Michael S. Malone (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one who thinks he still should be?
Yellow Tech Journalism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Moore's first law is a two-edged sword - more transistors for the same price is great for computers, but it's hell on batteries: As the processor power doubles, the power consumption also rises.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: Malone, the author, is exaggerating by implying that the size of a transistor is remainaining constant while the number of transistors doubles. As I understand it, the smaller the processor, the less power it requires. Is this right?
Sure the chip industry needs to work on energy usage (perhaps through either fuel-cell batteries for lap-tops). Also, Malone is merely following the wagon with Intel's recent processor naming change. They've already figured out, that cycles are losing their prior applicability.
Re:Yellow Tech Journalism? (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: Malone, the author, is exaggerating by implying that the size of a transistor is remainaining constant while the number of transistors doubles. As I understand it, the smaller the processor, the less power it requires. Is this right?
You are (mostly) correct about size versus power. But Malone didn't say processor size, he said processor power, which for most people is a function of clock speed. And he is cor
A Fire on the Deep (Score:2, Insightful)
For batteries to get better at a Moore's law rate, we need some different physical laws. But we can, as other posters mention, improve on efficiency of other parts. Cooler-running processors and low-power wireless - a la BlueTooth or 802.11[wha
The problem? Software. (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a really low electrical power CPU - optimized to take as little electricity as possible, but which is capable of running these kinds of applications acceptably quickly. It probably doesn't need to be more than 50MHz. Put this in a ultra-lightweight laptop style case, using solid state storage for disk (you can get USB memory sticks with 512MB which is more than sufficient for this class of computing) and have the battery go a day or two between charges.
My mobile phone is a case in point. Although it's not a word processor, I've got an organizer, email client, lightweight web browser, camera, SSH client, IRC client and pager all rolled into one, and it'll go ten days without a charge on standby, and can be used for 7 hours on one charge with a tiny battery. I can even make phone calls on it. Make essentially a notebook with mobile phone technology, and you've got an excellent portable internet terminal that you can write documents, make spreadsheets, compile small programs etc. on.
Re:The problem? Software. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The problem? Software. (Score:2)
Like the Psion Series 7 and Netbook [geek.com] then? Could do word processing, spreadsheets, internet stuff on the move in a much more compact case and with considerably better battery life than the laptops of the time.
What happened to it? It bombed. There's PDAs, there's laptops and it didn't sit comfortably in either camp - almost everyone who needs to work away from their desk needs/wants apps beyond the basics, and if it's as a desktop accompaniment the standard PDA tends to do a better job.
Software hasn't kept up. (Score:2)
Some very bad things have happened in software, some of which were the 8080 instruction set, BASIC, MS-DOS and Object Pascal. The biggest problem however was the lack of early adoption of networking technology including wireless. Early adoption of wireless networking technology would have
Re:Software hasn't kept up. (Score:2)
BTW - This is not intended to start a browser war thread so don't go there.
There are good reasons to get software out quickly, and waiting for the last bit of optimization my not be market efficient (missed sales opportunities). However, an awareness of scalability and performance should be included in design d
New Idea? Not really. (Score:3, Informative)
All the author is saying is we need to reapply Moore's law to another aspect of electronic manufacturing. Specifically to the creation of better, more efficient, power supplies for our wireless devices.
This is hardly ground breaking. Companies like to permutate Moore's laws all of the time. I've even heard marketing guys try to use it as a model for deciding a schedule to promote the next product.
Focusing on more efficient power supplies is indeed a worthy cause. And there are already attempts out there to use things such as fuel cell [pcworld.com] technology to help rectify this problem. So the author of the article shouldn't feel as if the issue is being ignored.
Laws of Infodynamics (Score:2)
I see no problem here (Score:3, Interesting)
If cellphones can do it in such small form factors, why wouldn't larger devices like notebooks be able to do the same? I know that most pc-compatible notebooks are engineered for speed, not battery life, but look at Apple's, for example. They live for more than 5 hours (and they really do) on one charge, which I think is quite respectable.
Some points I disagree with (Score:2)
The amount of computation done per watt also rises with each generation - an AMD Opteron at 500MHz would use under 10 watts, or an amount similar to an original Pentium.
But that alone won't do it. We need to improve system layouts and cooling techniques.
Better cooling won't reduce power - it means you can burn MO
Re:Some points I disagree with (Score:2)
Better cooling won't reduce power - it means you can burn MORE power without getting hotter. It doesn't help your battery life.
But the minute your system gets too hot, the fan starts working overtime. How many systems have more than 1 fan these days?
Improved system layout for transfering heat out of the computer would help power consumption, just indirectly.
Automated Optimisation Required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasn't it been pretty well proven that too much manual optimisation doesn't pay off? The time taken to optimise delays entry to the market, causing the optimised product to be obsoleted by newer (unoptimised) technology.
Isn't this pointing to a requirement for better automated design software, able to do optimisation in essentialy zero time. Any optimisation between manufacturers will require their design tools to automatically exchange data. I can't see too many manufacturers being prepared to swap such detailed design information (unless they are 'open source').
We can, actually, do better. (Score:2)
We can, actually, do better. Not long ago, there was this article [slashdot.org]. It spoke of a cluster of 12 mini-ITX motherboards that, collectively, consumed only 200W, while exhibiting the collective computational power of a 4- to 6-way cluster of 2.4GHZ machines, which, I would estimate, would consume two to three times as much energy.
This is actually the reason I would like to build such a cluster. I like power, but I like to be able to pay my energy bill, too.
If we can do this in that environment, can we mak
Rule of Thumb (Score:4, Funny)
[ ] Rule of Pinky(the Pinky Rule)
[ ] Rule of the Middle Finger(the FU Rule)
[ ] Rule of the Pointy Finger(the Blame someone else Rule)
[ ] Belly Button Rule(the Lint Rule)
[ ] The Little Piggy Rules
[ ] Rule of Nose(The "Smelt it, Dealt it" Rule)
Be sure to only pick one.
Nonsense. (Score:2, Interesting)
bad premise (Score:4, Insightful)
Battery Life (Score:2)
For the amount of time I personally ever spend away from a power point, all appliances have a more than adequate battery life. Ditch the obsession with wireless and come to terms with power lea
Roger Moore's Law (Score:4, Funny)
power consumption (Score:2)
Just like we need a new entropy law ... (Score:2)
Completly and totally wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's start off with an example... My good old 33MHz 486 notebook had a fairly large battery that would only last about 2 hours. Now, I've got a 1.2GHz notebook, with a far larger screen, smaller/lighter battery, and the battery life is much BETTER, not worse. What's more, there are notebooks much faster than mine, with 5+ hour battery life, and are still lighter.
The main reason is that ALL the components are getting more effecient. The hard drive is a significant drain on your batteries, but they are getting quite a bit more effecient every day. Things like the LCD backlight are becomming much more effecient (and brighter) at the same time. But that's just to start...
Power supplies are getting MUCH more effecient, and batteries are improving quite a bit as well (not quite doubling every 18 months, more like every 24 months).
Although the author seems to think otherwise, processors are becomming more effecient as well. My notebook only uses 30watts at MAX CPU/HDD utilization, and averages about 15 watts. Desktop processors are becomming more effecient quite quickly, just not as quickly as the speed is ramped up. While a 500MHz AMD processor used 42W, a similar 1,000MHz processor used 65W. That's right, effeciency IS improving quickly.
But that's only on the desktop front. If you look at notebooks, you will see that effeciency is even closer to matching performance improvements. It's just a matter that Intel/AMD are willing to spend the extra money on making notebook chips more effecient, while they aren't willing to spend much money on making desktop chips use less power. (which is why I'd personally like to have an ATX mobo that accepts a mobile Intel/AMD processors).
Re:What do they mean "efficiencies"? (Score:2, Funny)
Parent brings up a good point (Score:2, Insightful)
As a whole, we're generally a pretty environmentally-conscious bunch. That said, we geeks find ourselves dependent on more and more powerful, long-lasting batteries that do horiffic damage to the environment when not properly disposed of.
How then do we balance our concern for the environment against our ever-increasing portable power needs? For the time be
Maybe its time for the clockless chips? (Score:2)
There is research going on that changes the clock based design for much more energy efficient clockless design [columbia.edu]. Mind you this is nothing new, just not applied yet to every day computers.
One interesting chip design is/was the Amulet [man.ac.uk] which is compatible with the very popular ARM [armltd.co.uk] design in a clockless version.
Re:Less Power? (The current law is fine) (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, but there are other factors at work. What the article ignores is that the current law is still working fine. The amount of power used by an x-MHz chips has been steadily declining. I remember when a machine with a 16 MHz processor needed a 200W power supply -- now we have machines that are orders of magnitude faster and still use a 200W power supp
Re:Two solutions (Score:4, Insightful)