20 yrs from now

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003.

  1. T.N.O.

    T.N.O. Guest

    Are we going to look back at todays machines and say

    "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs..."
    "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    "in only 1GB Ram, how?"

    For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people) thought
    this 20 years ago...

    no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T.N.O. wrote:
    > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz
    > CPUs..." "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"
    >
    > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)
    > thought this 20 years ago...
    >
    > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.


    20 years ago, they probably couldn't see applications like editing
    movies/encoding audio working with a computer. Perhaps there are some
    applications we haven't yet realized (Holographic something? Virtual
    reality? Better 3D rendering?)? If not, then I think these stats will do us.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Oct 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Howard wrote:
    > I reckon speech recognition will be a big driver of better hardware
    > takeup. That is, when it arrives, and its been a long time coming...


    The current top-of-the-line speech recognition techniques can't make proper
    use of the hardware we have now. I can't wait until we have speech
    recognition that can actually max out a 3ghz processor and get a decent
    result.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Oct 21, 2003
    #3
  4. T.N.O.

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
    > 20 years ago, they probably couldn't see applications like editing
    > movies/encoding audio working with a computer.


    odd isn't it, I reckon somewhere there is a guy sitting there thinking "heh,
    I invented that..." when all that has happened is that it has been
    computerised.

    > Perhaps there are some
    > applications we haven't yet realized (Holographic something? Virtual
    > reality? Better 3D rendering?)?


    no doubt.

    > If not, then I think these stats will do us.


    Famous last words from a programmer :)
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #4
  5. T.N.O.

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
    > > I reckon speech recognition will be a big driver of better hardware
    > > takeup. That is, when it arrives, and its been a long time coming...


    > The current top-of-the-line speech recognition techniques can't make

    proper
    > use of the hardware we have now. I can't wait until we have speech
    > recognition that can actually max out a 3ghz processor and get a decent
    > result.


    The latest Dragon is pretty accurate out of the box(~90% ime), and it gets
    alot better, very very quickly.
    I did the 10 minute training thing with it, and it was closer to 95% which
    is damn near better than my typing...
    After I did the 1 hr training thing, it was 97% accurate, and faster than
    typing, Im thinking of actually buying because it is that damn good.
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #5
  6. "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
    news:3f94c264$...
    > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs..."
    > "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"
    >
    > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)

    thought
    > this 20 years ago...
    >
    > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.


    You mean "640k ought to be enough for anyone?"

    There is only a need for so much power. The computing power of 20 years ago
    are still powering many devices manufactured today, and the need for power
    in these devices will not increase substancially if at all.

    How powerful does a pocket calculator need to be? Sure if you have an HP48GX
    or similar, something greater than the current 4MHz (IIRC) would probably be
    desired, but your typical solar powered calculator given out as a
    promotional offering hardly needs that sort of power.

    As mentioned in one of my previous posts, why fix something that isn't
    broken? Why buy a new computer every 18 months to support increasingly
    bloated software (Including the OS), when the old one works perfectly well?

    Why buy Word 2003 when it does little (or nothing useful) more than Word
    2.0c did many years ago?

    A ten year old computer is still useful today for exactly the same things it
    was useful for back then, and more.

    In 20 years time I will look back at the current days systems with the
    respect they deserve, and no doubt reminisce about how back in the old days,
    computers weren't running bloated software, and how they still managed to be
    just as useful.

    In 20 years time computers will still be manufactured with speeds easily
    measured in Hz, and they will be just as important as the multi-GHz systems
    of the time. They will do what they are designed to do, and that is all I
    expect from any computer.

    The Other Guy
    The Other Guy, Oct 21, 2003
    #6
  7. T.N.O.

    harry Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bn2i9o$pgi$...
    > T.N.O. wrote:
    > > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    > >
    > > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz
    > > CPUs..." "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"
    > >
    > > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)
    > > thought this 20 years ago...
    > >
    > > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.

    >
    > 20 years ago, they probably couldn't see applications like editing
    > movies/encoding audio working with a computer.


    Oh really ?
    I was there then, and we already had hard disk editing systems from Quantel
    and Abekas that used 4:2:2 component digital video. Its just that they were
    million dollar systems.
    Likewise digital audio was well established, and Soundtools on the Macintosh
    wasn't too far away. Dedicated workstation systems were available, and CDs
    were just about to bring digital audio to the consumer.
    Its actually extremely disappointing how slow development has been,
    especially with broadband communications making do with the the old copper
    twisted pairs that were old then.
    harry, Oct 21, 2003
    #7
  8. In <3f94c264$> T.N.O. wrote:
    > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs...
    > " "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk" "in only 1GB
    > Ram, how?"
    >
    > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)
    > thought this 20 years ago...
    >
    > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.


    "It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible
    to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with
    such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years."
    John Von Neumann (circa 1949)

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

    PS/2 Mouse Adapter for vintage Apple II or Mac
    order at http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz
    Roger Johnstone, Oct 21, 2003
    #8
  9. T.N.O.

    steve Guest

    T.N.O. allegedly said:

    > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs..."
    > "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"
    >
    > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)
    > thought this 20 years ago...
    >
    > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.


    I'd like to see:

    "You mean the computer was separate from you and sat on the desk? You relied
    solely on *human* memory? How could you even think without instant,
    intra-cranial access to the sum of human knowldge?"

    --
    defenestrate: The act of replacing Windows on your PC with some other
    operating system.
    steve, Oct 21, 2003
    #9
  10. T.N.O.

    Jay Guest

    T.N.O. wrote:

    > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs..."
    > "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"


    .... and "100Mbps networking everywhere except still on 256kbps in NZ"
    Jay, Oct 21, 2003
    #10
  11. T.N.O.

    samg Guest

    "Howard" <> wrote in
    news:J24lb.185483$:

    > I reckon speech recognition will be a big driver of better hardware
    > takeup. That is, when it arrives, and its been a long time coming...
    >
    >


    yeah not only speech recognition but speech generation. Damn I cant wait
    till my computer can talk back to me, in any voice I choose.
    samg, Oct 21, 2003
    #11
  12. T.N.O.

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Jay" wrote
    > ... and "100Mbps networking everywhere except still on 256kbps in NZ"


    dick head, we have 100Mbps networking...
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #12
  13. T.N.O.

    bt Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:24:20 +1300, "T.N.O." <> wrote:

    >Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    >
    >"3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz CPUs..."
    >"250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    >"in only 1GB Ram, how?"


    Yes, we will.

    Processing/memory: I expect them to be more 3D clusters of hundreds of
    individual chips held inside an artificial diamond. Reliability and
    processing power will gained from self-optimising (GA) interconnects
    between them in a massively parallel network. The diamond will protect
    them and conduct waste heat away rapidly. Communication with other
    components via multi-spectrum UWB - and I include optical in that too.
    Hz is irrelevant since it's all asynchronous. But processing power
    equivalent to the human brain or superior - AND fully programmable
    (e.g. no need to waste horse power on heart beat and temperature
    regulation).

    Storage: quantum optical; a credit card having capacity of several
    thousands of terrabytes.

    >For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people) thought
    >this 20 years ago...


    Yes, they did.

    In the 1950's IIRC, the opinion of IBM was that the world needed only
    6 computers.

    In the 1890's, the opinion was that the telephone was an irrelevant
    gimmic because the Telegraph was all that was needed and there were
    plenty of small boys to run errands.

    Also during that period, buggy whip makers insisted the automobile was
    a passing fad.

    Do you see a trend ? People ALWAYS, ALWAYS underestimate the impact of
    technology on their futures, and are ALWAYS surprised at how fast it
    advances.

    THAT is because technology does not follow a linear progression
    diagram; it is infact an exponential curve. It builds on itself in a
    feed back loop: better technology in turn begets better technology.

    Plot an exponential curve using the information above. You could call
    it Mores Law. But you will notice a curious thing: Moore got it wrong.
    We no longer double in speed every 18 months.

    We are down to around 8 months now. THAT has taken about 20 years. 18
    months to 8. It'll be 4 months in about another 5 years.

    And it's STILL accelerating.

    Want to guess how long it will take to double processing power given
    another 20 years ?

    >no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.


    We will look back - or one of our sub-minds will - in 2023 and wonder
    for perhaps nanoseconds at how long and slow things were back in 2023.

    We will then get back to optimising our latest AI version of
    ourselves.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
    bt, Oct 21, 2003
    #13
  14. T.N.O.

    bt Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:27:33 +1300, "harry" <> wrote:

    >Its actually extremely disappointing how slow development has been,
    >especially with broadband communications making do with the the old copper
    >twisted pairs that were old then.


    THAT slowness is purely due to commercial entities trying to extract
    every last dollar.

    The rest can be explained by the interplay of Law, Society and
    Culture.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
    bt, Oct 21, 2003
    #14
  15. T.N.O.

    bt Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:36:22 +1300, "The Other Guy" <>

    >There is only a need for so much power.


    And that need sits somewhere around the "didn't notice waiting for it"
    level.

    >The computing power of 20 years ago
    >are still powering many devices manufactured today, and the need for power
    >in these devices will not increase substancially if at all.


    That depends on how we do things.

    If society stays much the same as it is, things will be done much the
    same as they are.

    But as we both know, technology changes society so society does NOT
    stay the same as it is.

    >How powerful does a pocket calculator need to be? Sure if you have an HP48GX
    >or similar, something greater than the current 4MHz (IIRC) would probably be
    >desired, but your typical solar powered calculator given out as a
    >promotional offering hardly needs that sort of power.


    But your calculator is unlikly to stay as it is because it'll be
    incorporated into a multifuction device.

    Like a PDA for example.

    >As mentioned in one of my previous posts, why fix something that isn't
    >broken?


    Because human's are tool makers. If we are not making or using a tool,
    we are not entirely human. We like to do it.

    >Why buy a new computer every 18 months to support increasingly
    >bloated software (Including the OS), when the old one works perfectly well?


    Because you want to run the newer software.

    Software is the tail wagging the dog. Or more correctly, hardware was
    the tail wagging the dog, but lately the dog has gotten bigger.

    Now hardware is made to run the software.

    >Why buy Word 2003 when it does little (or nothing useful) more than Word
    >2.0c did many years ago?


    Because word 2003 comes with the computer when you buy it out of Large
    Retailer.

    Anyone else buys it because they need it's features.

    I know what you are saying though: just because it's newer and faster
    does not necessarily MAKE it better. And that is true from a technical
    standpoint, but it ignores culture, commerce, and compatibility
    factors.

    >A ten year old computer is still useful today for exactly the same things it
    >was useful for back then, and more.


    If the battery on the MB hasn't pooped itself all over the circuits.

    And that is more than a glib witticism: it is a hard fact. If you
    insisted on using your 10 year old computer you buy yourself an
    increasing risk of catastrophic failure due to deterioration of the
    hardware components.

    >In 20 years time I will look back at the current days systems with the
    >respect they deserve, and no doubt reminisce about how back in the old days,
    >computers weren't running bloated software, and how they still managed to be
    >just as useful.


    I guess we all will. But it'll not be entirely accurate.

    It is a artificat of our psychology that has us looking back and
    thinking of 'golden ages', and the 'good old days'.

    We think they were good because our minds have edited OUT the bad
    stuff. Unless you are clinically depressed. Additionally, it feels
    good because we now KNOW the answer to the problems we then faced; we
    know what was going to happen because it's already happened and we are
    remembering - with our sub-conscious filling in the details with 20/20
    hindsight.

    Bloated software: I agree with you in many ways, but not over-all. If
    we were able to de-compile the human mind, I bet you would find 90% of
    it to be bloatware.

    And maybe it COULD be edited out and result in superior performance.
    But here's the rub: you can't. Because it's impractical.

    The time you spent trying to fix some monolithic piece of code would
    be better spent programming a replacement with a new paradigm in mind;
    by the time you finish that, and run it on the THEN existing hardware,
    your results will likly exceed even the most optimistic improvements
    you could have made optimising the old code.

    Of course there is a lot of cross-over though: properly layed out code
    can have sections of itself wholy replaced resulting in a hybrid
    approach.

    But as time progresses, I expect to see less of that and more of the
    former.

    And sooner or later, some clever pack will write software that
    optimises itself. Organic like software; Artificial Life.

    >In 20 years time computers will still be manufactured with speeds easily
    >measured in Hz, and they will be just as important as the multi-GHz systems
    >of the time. They will do what they are designed to do, and that is all I
    >expect from any computer.


    I think you are ignoring the impact of increasingly powerful tools on
    our society, and the way this tends to build upon itself.

    In 20 years time, quantum computing should be perfected. This is not
    just a faster computer; it is a paradigm shift. Problems of infinite
    complexity will be solved.

    One example: how will the world change when a PDA can crack ANY
    conventional form of cryptology ?

    What happens when your brain and mind can be modelled perfectly inside
    a 3 million MIPS computer cluster in 2023 ?

    So I ask you seriously: do you still belive we will use and view
    computers in 2023 the same way we do now ? Will it be correct to see
    them as 'mere machines, tools for a purpose', or will we see them as
    something more akin to ourselves ?

    After all, what happens when the tools themselves make tools for
    themselves ?


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
    bt, Oct 21, 2003
    #15
  16. T.N.O.

    bt Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:19:30 +1300, "T.N.O." <> wrote:

    >The latest Dragon is pretty accurate out of the box(~90% ime), and it gets
    >alot better, very very quickly.
    >I did the 10 minute training thing with it, and it was closer to 95% which
    >is damn near better than my typing...
    >After I did the 1 hr training thing, it was 97% accurate, and faster than
    >typing, Im thinking of actually buying because it is that damn good.


    This is the sort of thing I am talking about. A lot of people do not
    have a clue about the real cutting edge. And Dragon, while good, is
    not the cutting edge.

    Perhaps we need to talk to them Echelon people about the cutting
    edge...

    97% is about as good as a human; humans do not get it right much more
    often. But we have the advanatge of intelligence, and experiance to
    fill in the gaps. We also gain a lot by body language, tone and
    situation.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
    bt, Oct 21, 2003
    #16
  17. T.N.O.

    Jay Guest

    T.N.O. wrote:

    > "Jay" wrote
    >> ... and "100Mbps networking everywhere except still on 256kbps in NZ"

    >
    > dick head, we have 100Mbps networking...


    Oh really? So ADSL in NZ is 100Mbps?
    Jay, Oct 21, 2003
    #17
  18. On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:27:09 +1300, bt wrote:

    > Processing/memory: I expect them to be more 3D clusters of hundreds of
    > individual chips held inside an artificial diamond. Reliability and
    > processing power will gained from self-optimising (GA) interconnects
    > between them in a massively parallel network. The diamond will protect
    > them and conduct waste heat away rapidly.


    Sod that. I'd settle for lower power consumption at the same speeds we
    have now.

    Speeds are fast enough for business usage - there hasn't been the massive
    speed creep of past years - only about 3 times as fast as 2 years ago,
    itead of the usual 8-10 times

    Disks are big enough for most usage - they've only doubled in the last 2
    1/2 years, vis historic tendencies to increase by 10.

    Ram is still growing, that's an area where squeezes are felt. My own
    experience is that the sweet spot is about 4-8Gb.

    Gamers will push the limits, but unless something comes along which
    radically changes needs, computers now seem fast enough for the tasks at
    hand. What's needed now is faster, more reliable connectivity.


    Having said that, I'm in the middle of getting a 10Tb SAN (will be 100Tb
    in 4 years) running plus
    clustered processing nodes and 10Gb LAN - there's still a leading edge out
    there but how relevant is it to non-gaming home computers? Or business
    computers for that matter.


    > Storage: quantum optical; a credit card having capacity of several
    > thousands of terrabytes.


    It works, the problem is the device to read the card is the size of a
    small car.

    HDDs will go away eventually - that will just leave fans as the moving
    parts to fail (they're still far less reliable than HDDs) - and there are
    ways of dealing with that problem if you don't mind spending $60 on
    ducting and a good quiet fan instead of $5 each on 4-5 noisy shitters.

    > In the 1890's, the opinion was that the telephone was an irrelevant
    > gimmic because the Telegraph was all that was needed and there were
    > plenty of small boys to run errands.


    Actually the horror about the telephone was how much bandwidth it wasted -
    one telephone circuit took the same lines as 25 telegraph circuits - they
    were multiplexing even then. :)



    The reasonable man adapts to the world. The Unreasonable man adapts the
    world to suit himself.

    All progress therefore depends on the unreasonable man.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Oct 21, 2003
    #18
  19. T.N.O.

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Jay" wrote
    > >> ... and "100Mbps networking everywhere except still on 256kbps in NZ"


    > > dick head, we have 100Mbps networking...


    > Oh really? So ADSL in NZ is 100Mbps?


    nope, we have "100Mbps networking" just like you said we didnt.
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #19
  20. T.N.O.

    Rider Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bn2i9o$pgi$...
    > T.N.O. wrote:
    > > Are we going to look back at todays machines and say
    > >
    > > "3 GHz, how the hell did we ever get anything done with only 3GHz
    > > CPUs..." "250GB hdd, thats like only enough for my utils disk"
    > > "in only 1GB Ram, how?"
    > >
    > > For some reason I just dont see it, I wonder if they(the old people)
    > > thought this 20 years ago...
    > >
    > > no need for Bill Gates mis-quoted quotes either.

    >
    > 20 years ago, they probably couldn't see applications like editing
    > movies/encoding audio working with a computer. Perhaps there are some
    > applications we haven't yet realized (Holographic something? Virtual
    > reality? Better 3D rendering?)? If not, then I think these stats will do

    us.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nicholas Sherlock
    >
    >


    You for got Quake 15 :)

    Rider
    Rider, Oct 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?TW8=?=

    Now you see it, now you don't

    =?Utf-8?B?TW8=?=, Sep 26, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
    =?Utf-8?B?TW8=?=
    Sep 26, 2004
  2. Emrys Davies

    Mike-All is now well now

    Emrys Davies, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    °Mike°
    Aug 11, 2003
  3. Jim Beaver

    Now you see it, now you don't

    Jim Beaver, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    763
    Vanguard
    Mar 16, 2005
  4. gimp

    buying online parts over Xmas/new yrs

    gimp, Dec 27, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    270
    Fred Dagg
    Dec 28, 2005
  5. thanatoid

    Dollar bills from 20-30 yrs ago

    thanatoid, Jun 26, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    758
    DevilsPGD
    Jun 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page