Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Why We Need a Second Moore's Law 254

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why We Need a Second Moore's Law More

Why We Need a Second Moore's Law

Comments Filter:

  • It's funny, laugh. (Score:4, Funny)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:14AM (#8778792) Journal
    Moore's Law? Murphy's Law.
    • Allow me to suggest that battery powered devices need not do the "heavy lifting" for portable devices. Have "plugged-in devices do the "heavy lifting," and just use the portable to display, and communicate the results.

  • What we need is... Meta Moore's Law (Score:3, Funny)

    by WilliamsDA ( 567274 ) <derk AT derk DOT org> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:14AM (#8778793) Homepage
    What we really need is a Meta Moore's law, to tell us how long it takes before we need a new Moore's law.
    • Calls for a new Moore's law double every 18 months?
    • I'm going to be modded troll or whatever, but I think what we need is to shut up.

      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,

      • You are so right! In fact, I'd say that Moore's Law was far from a new idea. It applies to just about everything and anything. Remembering back to Econ 101 (albeit cloudily so) many people back in the 18th and 19th centuries were freaked out that soon there wouldn't be enough land for crops to feed the increasing populations. And they were right...based on current conditions. What they never took into consideration is the advancement in technology which provides higher and higher yields on less land.

  • If it's wrong (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MC68040 ( 462186 )
    Well if it's some day proven wrong, why just make another law that someday also might be inaccurate...


  • What's wrong, are engineers getting too much sex?

  • Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:17AM (#8778822) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • That, combined with a form of fusion, will give the machines all the energy they need...
    • At the very leasy these gyms could push the generated power back into the power grid. They could even get paid for it by the power company.

      Do I smell a new business model here?

      • Re:Human hampster wheel/windmill thingies...? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:27AM (#8778916) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • That's a really cool idea. As it is, I shuffle my feet all the time when sitting at the computer, doing this in a somewhat more structured manner would be great. That said, the typical computer seat probably makes cycling on pedals a bit difficult, no?
        • I've thought about that. The problem is...well, there are several.

          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.

          • 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

        • A standard bycycle sits you too high to fit at a standard height desk, and you can't lower the seat height very much becuase you need to be able to extend your legs when you pedal. A recumbent bike offers more possibilities. However, I question whether you'd really want to do any significant exercise wearing standard business clothes at work. Do you really want to work up a good sweat in your businesss suit? Even if you're in a job with more relaxed attire, do you want to be sweating while you're doing

        • Like this device? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Chep ( 25806 )
          Le mini-bike [camif.fr] is for you, waiting for you to dremel in a dynamo.

          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.

      • You could even purify the sweat, and turn it into drinking water and salt, so that you had salt for food, and water for drinking when you're on your power-generating workout because you get paid minimum wage, and need more money.
    • "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."

      Can anyone say Matrix.

      • 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)

          by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:39AM (#8779004) Homepage Journal
          "I'm thinking more of a way to utilize kinetic energy and translate it into stored power."

          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.

          • 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...

            • Would that work for people that are like us and sit all day. How many tech people would create much kinetic energy. That's like the solr powered coat to recharge your toys. You need to see the light of day to use it. That means all the techie ppl would have to move more then just their fingers.
    • Back around 1995, when I was in middle school, they had us do laps around the gym for no reason other than to tire us out in the name of exercise. I joked about how there was a huge treadmill underneath the floor that stored the energy we exerted because the school's budget was declining and they had to resort to this in order to save money on power.
    • No, that's too much work. I think what we really need is some kind of human power generator factory where humans just lay there in some sort of translucent pods with wires connecting to them directly and energy just kind of floating between the pods in gigantic lightning bolts. The humans don't have to do anything else, except to be there, so it makes sence to make sure that they are all asleep at all times while in the pod. In fact, why would they need to leave the pods ever at all? They can have happy

  • Billy you listening? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:18AM (#8778825)
    What we need is a fourth axis of development - a systematic improvement of overall system efficiency, from the individual silicon gate, through motherboards and displays, all the way up to the Internet itself. How do we do it? Exhaustively.

    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)

      by Delta-9 ( 19355 ) <delta9.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:23AM (#8778867)
      Which is why my powerbook battery lasts so damn long. One of the many reasons I am using it now more often than any windows-based laptop I have ever owned and/or used.

      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.

    • Having a lot of something is no excuse to waste it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:38AM (#8778999) Homepage Journal
      I second that. It makes me sad when people say that it doesn't matter the software is inefficient, because computers will get faster, which will solve the problem. What this means is that, because the developers were sloppy, the users have to pay more (they need faster and typically more power-hungry machines).

      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.
      • Amen. I learned so much from working on small, underpowered systems. Having to think about where your CPU cycles and disk space are going forces you to pick up much more of a feel for how things really work. (e.g. I'm running out of space in /var - let's see what all those files are *really* for. What packages can I lose? What can I turn off or tweak? Is there a better way of doing this?)

        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)

      by CarrionBird ( 589738 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:51AM (#8779121) Journal
      More efficient software is not going to happen when every new programmer is taught to have no reagrd for resources.

      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.
      • You misinterpreted your professor(s). It is no longer considered practical to optimize, however, that does not mean that you should not be selecting the proper algorithms. That does not mean that you should not sit and ponder whether you should use a linear or binary search, but it does mean that you should not sit there and modify your binary search to instead of cutting the problem in half, cut it into a 1:3 ratio because it will run faster that way most of the time since users often only want whats
    • Now that we have more room we are being lazy and only concentrating on making things "larger than life" instead of faster and smaller.

      'sarcasm
      And that's why Java is so usefull

    • Re:Billy you listening? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @10:05AM (#8779243)
      But it's a tradeoff. The more you worry about efficiency, the longer it will take to write software and the less you can accomplish. I'm not so sure what is the point in calling out Billy (Bill Gates) specifically. As they are generally no worse in creating efficient code as any other software company.

  • Observation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by philbowman ( 707419 ) * on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:18AM (#8778826)
    Moore's law is an observation, not something that the industry is forced to follow. You can't just say "we need more efficiency - let's define a new Moore's law".

    • re: observation... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ed.han ( 444783 )
      a fair point, to be sure. although the article's author clearly feels that the basis for such a law exists in moore's paper, the fact of the matter is that i'm pretty certain engineers working on batteries are keenly aware of the need to develop more efficient batteries, capable of holding a charge longer, while ideally not becoming too hot to avoid "scorched lap" syndrome. further, i'm similarly certain that if such an observable principle actually existed that some reasonably perceptive engineer would h
    • Actually, I beleive the Moore law is an obsevation of an economic reality.

      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.

  • No new law, just action! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hekatchu ( 684465 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:18AM (#8778828)
    I dont think theres need for new laws, even for Moores law, we just need more technological advancement and new innovations ...

  • A small observation... (Score:3, Funny)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:19AM (#8778832) Homepage
    "wireless devices, which obviously are not connected to a plug."

    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?

  • Usability (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 )
    This makes sense - and is something Ive been known to have a drunken rant about from time to time.

    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
    • So don't replace it with a 3 GHz Dell. Replace it with an 800 MHz iBook. You can get an iBook G3-800 (last year's girl) for about $750. And your usability issues? Pss. Gone. And battery life is about twice as long, thanks to more efficient processor and screen.
    • My laptop is in need of renewal - its a 1Ghz Dell.

      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?

      • A couple of things - I'm a lazy bastard and my machine gets clogged up with crap as I go along. So it feels slower over time.

        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!
    • > 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.

      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)

        by squaretorus ( 459130 )
        Thats a Uk cash Sterling Pound to a genuine pinch of shit (poo, crap, jobbies, turd).

        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 /.ers

  • NEED a second Moore's law? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spellraiser ( 764337 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:23AM (#8778868) Journal

    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.

  • Peace and Love (Score:2, Funny)

    by turgid ( 580780 )
    If people just chilled out, learned to respect nature and loved one another, they could get all the energy [skepdic.com] they need from the ley lines [skepdic.com].

  • He said more than a famous phrase (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:25AM (#8778890) Homepage Journal
    What many people don't realize is that Moore didn't just say the one famous sentence. He wrote a short paper explaining his predictions and they were far more complicated than simply doubling power while maintaining cost. He qualified it by explaining it would only be possible if certain things happen. He was well aware of certain limits which we've now passed with unexpected technologies.

    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.
  • He argues that Moore's law was based on three axes of development, speed, miniaturization, and price, and that we need a new law adding a fourth one, overall system efficiency.

    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)

    by KRzBZ ( 707148 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:26AM (#8778902)
    Marshmallows taste better than silicon chips when squished between chocolate bars and graham crackers. The improvement in taste of marshmallow s'mores is immediately and at least 1.5x noticeably better with every silicon-based s'more eaten.

  • Springs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:26AM (#8778904) Homepage Journal
    really, springs, clocksprings to be exact. I brought this up in another discussion last week. I have two radios (baygen/freeplay)that make quite good use of windup to tighten a spring to run a microgenerator technology in lieu of batteries. I have another radio that has built in solar and a crank on the side that is a direct generator to on board rechargeable battery, plus it has another compartment that holds disposable batteries, or you can plug in a voltage adapter. It's an inexpensive radio, but it has 4 way power and works quite well. I understand now that grundig has an even higher quality radio with a similar crank to microgenerator scheme. This sort of technology makes use of extremely efficient energy conversion and energy storage, ie, biochemical from the human body, that beats heck out of any battery out there. How about at least starting with a PDA to see if the windup style concepts have merit and can be adapted up the useage scale then? I see a lot of these PDAs use AA or AAA batteries, the same as these small radios, seems a natural to me. Even just a power adapter that is the spring, crank and battery bank, and that plugs into existing PDAs if they have a DC jack in. something along those lines. It's just not that hard to run a tiny crank for 30 to 60 seconds.
    • In theory it sounds like a good idea but you have to note that the BayGen radio isn't a small unit--it's actually quite large because you needed a fairly large clockspring mechanism to generate the power necessary.

      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)

    by Fapestniegd ( 34586 ) <{gro.etihwsemaj} {ta} {semaj}> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:27AM (#8778908) Homepage
    Wired Magazine argues that we need a second Moore's law, this time about overall efficiencies of our computers and other electronic devices.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:28AM (#8778920)
    n 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."

    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
  • I don't even know what fuel cell batteries are, but old sci-fi fans always bring them up whenever power is mentioned at conventions. I haven't seen anyone with a UNIX beard post "fuel cells!" yet, so I can only surmise that they're sleeping off their Big Mac benders. That's got to be rough, having to order three meals instead of two, ever since Micky D dropped the super sizing.

  • Michael S. Malone (Score:5, Funny)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:30AM (#8778935) Homepage Journal
    Does anybody else remember when this guy was writing nightclub reviews for the SJ Mercury News 15 or so years ago (no, not the Modem Driver guy, he came later)?

    Am I the only one who thinks he still should be?

  • Yellow Tech Journalism? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Iaughter ( 723964 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:31AM (#8778946) Homepage
    I read this article in the paper version of Wired and had a few problems with it. Although Wired is a fun source of tech "news", the amount of speculation and flat-out imagination abounds.

    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.

    • 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?

      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)

    by Uncle Op ( 541486 )
    With Moore's "law" as accurate as it has been, I am reminded of Vernor Vinge's universe wherein things that are really complex technologically - to the point of being magical - depend on local-area changes in the structure of the universe (or at least the galaxy).

    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)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:35AM (#8778979) Journal
    OK, when on the move, how many people who are doing word processing need more than the features of WordPerfect 5, the early versions of Excel for Windows and that kind of thing?

    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.
    • 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.
      Yeah. All the people I used to work with at Transmeta and I could have told you that about 4 years ago. Unfortunately, no one really listened and they mostly just complained about the processor speed being too slow to play FPSes.

    • 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.

  • If software advances had kept up with Moore's Law, there would be far fewer computing cycles spent doing far more and it would seem ridiculous to have any system boasting billions of transistors switching at gigahertz.

    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

    • Compare function/feature/disk footprint/performance of Firebird and IE. A well architected application can be optimized later as Firebird was and the efforts continue. Kudos to the Mozilla gang.

      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)

    by Kaishaku255 ( 693156 ) <kaishaku@seppuku.us> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:43AM (#8779052) Homepage

    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.

  • What is the energy:information equivalence ratio? We've got E=mc^2 for mass:energy (speed of light in a higher-dimensional vacuum), even E=hf (Planck's constant) for frequency:energy. In E=ki, what is the value of k? That's the exact number of joules per bit in a signal with 0% noise. It's more akin to Planck's E=hf, energy carried, than to Einstein's E=mc^2, energy converted, so Shannon's info theory probably speaks to this equation. Recapitulating the German experience with matter and energy at the turn o

  • I see no problem here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:46AM (#8779079) Homepage Journal
    I don't think there is a problem with power usage here. Cellphones have the power to be full fledged telephones, electronic organizers and even office computers (mail, word processing, web browsing, etc.) all in one. Yet, one cellphone battery charge lasts a lot longer than a few years ago. And I think noone would argue cellphones aren't wireless.

    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.
  • 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.
    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
    • 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 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)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:53AM (#8779139) Homepage
    Wouldn't improving "overall net efficiency", by addressing all aspects of a system, be an excercise in optimisation?

    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. 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)

    by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @10:00AM (#8779191)
    Due to the overuse of the Rule of Thumb it is obivious that we need another appendage to name a rule after. I suggest one of the following,

    [ ] 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)

    by slusich ( 684826 )
    Yes, wireless devices are becoming more prevelant, but they will never fully replace wired fixed workstations. While we can always work towards wireless devices that use less power, better batteries, and better wireless connectivity, it will not match the speed and power of a desktop. The idea that battery life is going to limit the semiconductor industry is foolish.

  • bad premise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#8779212) Homepage
    I disagree with the terms of this article. He's right if you're talking about putting the fastest possible technology in portable devices -- but we've NEVER been able to do that. If you want a "Moore's Law" for portable devices, it's that when you drop the clock frequency of a processor its power requirements drop still faster. The processors in current cell phones put the original IBM PC to shame, and in ten years they'll be approaching the speeds of current desktop machines, and even though those desktops will be light years ahead, the portables will be plenty nice.
  • Why bother? Mains power is ubiquitous. Already they have managed to make switch-mode PSUs that can handle a wide enough range of voltages and frequencies to work pretty much anywhere in the world, and they even have interchangeable connectors to handle the different sockets encountered by cosmopolitan travellers.

    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)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @10:09AM (#8779279)
    After Sean Connery, each succesive actor who plays James Bond will get worse by a factor of 1.5.
  • I once considered to run my own server. Then calculated power consumption of a PC left 24/7. Dropped the idea immediately. For you Yankees, power is cheap. But here in the ol' countries, that is quite some euro's out of the window. I don't do that much more with a PC then 8 years ago. Why does it have to use 3 times as much power?
  • Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? This is like physicists saying we need a new law of entropy so we can make devices that are 110% efficient.

  • Completly and totally wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @10:50AM (#8779700) Journal
    The author is just completely and totally wrong... There's no better way to put it, I'm afraid.

    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).

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close