| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
"machines are still getting faster""machines are still getting faster"Posted Jan 15, 2009 16:18 UTC (Thu) by fandom (subscriber, #4028)Parent article: Python slithers into Wesnoth
Are they really? This last year we got a flood of netbooks and mobile
gadgets which are actually quite slower.
Eventually they will be as fast as a current desktop computer, but it
(Log in to post comments)
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 15, 2009 16:32 UTC (Thu) by droundy (subscriber, #4559) [Link]
That is an excellent point, and one I wish more software developers would consider. Of course, the new netbooks are still far faster than any of *my* computers, but it'll be a relief when the end of Moore's law means my computer can stop being obsoleted after ten years. Back in the day, one of the advantages of linux was being able to run a modern system on older hardware. Fortunately, Vista has made it relatively easy to stay ahead of Microsoft, but we can't always rely on Microsoft compensating for poor choices by free software developers.
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 15, 2009 18:11 UTC (Thu) by dennisdjensen (subscriber, #25165) [Link]
Nitpicking: Moore's law ended in 2003 when the curve broke.
Software gets slower much faster than hardware gets faster. In a few years assembler will get a
Kudos to White for handling this with such patience, kindness and respect.
I recently used C++ on a large project. Even though I know how to code decently in it, it
Good analysis by the way! I've subscribed to Linux Weekly News for years now, and it's still top
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 15, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Nitpicking: Moore's law ended in 2003 when the curve broke. I think you may be confused about Moore's law: it's not about clock-speed, rather it's about transistor counts. I'm reasonably sure Moore's law still applies. It's being expressed in increasing number of functional units/chip rather than clock cycles..
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 17, 2009 18:39 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] So true. Another way of looking at it (instead of doubling the number of transistors every 18 months) is how big each transistor is; the size should divide by 2 every 3 years. How has it worked out in practice? Most companies have now built 45 nm fabs, from 65 nm; the 90 nm process of 6 years ago is quite outdated. Notice that it took 6 years instead of the predicted three; it seems that there was a noticeable bump at 65 nm, and the jump from 90 nm took 3 years instead of 1.5.There is still plenty of room at the bottom. According to wikipedia, we are still 6 to 13 years away from the 11 nm process; and that could lead to even smaller nanoelectronics processes, where transistors are packed even more tightly. I predict that the wrist computers of 2030 will be cleverer than your average HAL of 2001, and that hearing aids will run a flavor of Debian in their 128 cores.
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 15, 2009 23:26 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
My sons both love Wesnoth, and it runs very slowly and then locks up when they try it on their OLPC XOs, because it uses too much memory. Whether using more Python and less C++ in Wesnoth will make that problem worse or better remains to be seen.
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 16, 2009 10:21 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Eventually they will be as fast as a current desktop computer, but it will take some years. ... by which time desktop computers and the expectations of software for them will have grown even more hungry! The CPU and memory specs of the EEE PC (any version) would have been quite decent for a 1999 desktop computer buyer. I got a 633 Mhz Celeron system at that time with 256K RAM, and it was plenty for the typical OS'es (both Windows and Linux) and applications of the time.
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 16, 2009 22:38 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
256K RAM in 1999? 256Mb, surely ;)
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 17, 2009 21:12 UTC (Sat) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Yes, of course 256Mb. Actually I used it at home until 2 years ago (with the minor upgrades of adding a DVD burner and changing the Celeron to the corresponding Pentium III, giving a slight speedup).
"machines are still getting faster" Posted Jan 22, 2009 11:51 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
You should only compare machines that are actually comparable. You can't take a desktop/laptop from 2007, and compare it to netbook from 2008 and proclaim "computers are getting slower!". If you want to do such a comparison, you should compare desktops to desktops, laptops to laptops and netbooks to netbooks.
That said, I really can't see how performance of the computer could be an issue in a game like Wesnoth. Maybe for some really, EEALLY low-end computers, but should the goal of a game (any game) be that "it must be playable on every computer in existence, no matter how old or slow!"?
|
|
||||||||||||