When will performance improvement relent?

[Max2559]

If you're reading this then you, like me, have grown up in a speedily evolving world. Computers did not exist so long ago, and now we bash at the keyboard as if they are something that always existed.

Computers have a point... they are facilitators, they are far better at numerical data analysis... and a whole spectrum of things that would take a human an unreasonable and impossible amount of time.

My question is this; where does it stop for the everyday user? When do we stop making computers faster for the every day user?

Surely there must be a time when a computer is fast enough (if not too fast) to cope with all the things we want it to do).


OK - Yes.... Software continues to demand better hardware... but at what point do we say.... actually... there's no need for faster computers.

At present most people just surf the web and word process... so unless the bulk of the computer using population is about to start gaming - how are we going to continue the performance improvements like we have?

In my view we have been making everything faster and faster because it made a difference. - In the 90's waiting 5 min for windows to load was a long time... (Ironic sub zero users)... but at the end of the day, we're at the point now when actually computers are quite reasonable and load in a minute.

Ok - We've gone from 2 cores -> 4... And that's great! - But who's going to need 12 or 16 cores?

NO ONE I KNOW. . . other than computer enthusiasts and the odd business that’s that big.

It’s easy to up the price on a product when you know a year later it is going to be a must have on the mainline consumer market... BUT IF IT’S NOT BECAUSE NO CONSUMER NEEDS IT! - What then>>?



I think we are on the edge of a plateau... and I'd like you’re opinion.

 

[badge]

If you're reading this then you, like me, have grown up in a speedily evolving world. Computers did not exist so long ago, and now we bash at the keyboard as if they are something that always existed.

Computers have a point... they are facilitators, they are far better at numerical data analysis... and a whole spectrum of things that would take a human an unreasonable and impossible amount of time.

My question is this; where does it stop for the everyday user? When do we stop making computers faster for the every day user?

Surely there must be a time when a computer is fast enough (if not too fast) to cope with all the things we want it to do).


OK - Yes.... Software continues to demand better hardware... but at what point do we say.... actually... there's no need for faster computers.

At present most people just surf the web and word process... so unless the bulk of the computer using population is about to start gaming - how are we going to continue the performance improvements like we have?

In my view we have been making everything faster and faster because it made a difference. - In the 90's waiting 5 min for windows to load was a long time... (Ironic sub zero users)... but at the end of the day, we're at the point now when actually computers are quite reasonable and load in a minute.

Ok - We've gone from 2 cores -> 4... And that's great! - But who's going to need 12 or 16 cores?

NO ONE I KNOW. . . other than computer enthusiasts and the odd business that’s that big.

It’s easy to up the price on a product when you know a year later it is going to be a must have on the mainline consumer market... BUT IF IT’S NOT BECAUSE NO CONSUMER NEEDS IT! - What then>>?



I think we are on the edge of a plateau... and I'd like you’re opinion.

http://www.answermejesus.com/ask.asp

 

[quantumsheep]

Computers will keep getting faster and faster (Moore's law. Ok, it doesn't state "faster" but rather larger die size but, y'know) because there will always be demand for faster things by large businesses/science/servers/gamers. Due to the fact it's easier to produce 1 type of product then many different for the different markets the big chip makers (such as Intel) will keep developing faster and faster chips.

Also the fact that the average user is using their computer for mroe and more these days. 10 years ago the average person didn't use their computer as a media server but now that's quite common, among video editing and photo editing. Video editing is still very CPU hefty so consumers will be very happy with faster and faster chips.

I don't believe we're on the edge of a plateau at all, i believe that computers will just play bigger and bigger parts in our lives so therefore will have to be faster and more efficient than ever before! I believe the future is very bright for the computer industry as a whole - look at the HUGE emerging markets such as India and China. Over 2 billion people that will soon all be wanting computers! Actually, this is digressing a bit. But to restate my conclusion:

No plateau!

 

[zenmaster]

As computers get faster, needs to fill the speed will be created.
Much of that will be bloat.
It's easier to write high level code than low level code.
Since we have the power, the excess is not a problem.

In other cases, we may have old tech that becomes better.
Maybe real-time Speech Recognition that was actually extremely good by not only recognizing the word but applying grammer rules to be able to figure out what word you said when it could not really make it out.

 

[StevieD]

http://www.answermejesus.com/ask.asp

I checked.

I asked if it was ok to have unprotected s_x with a skanky Ho. The answer was "Yes My Child".

Not having real confience in the answers generated on that website.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think there will never be an end to faster, stronger and more effiecient products for everything because...... well thats how it works.

If someone thought "A 500MHz CPU is fine we don't need faster" we would be stuck on very old game style graphics.

Its always evoloving and improving.

 

[badge]

I checked too. I got a note addressed to "Dear Dad' signed Barrack.

 

[StevieD]

As computers get faster, needs to fill the speed will be created.
Much of that will be bloat.
It's easier to write high level code than low level code.
Since we have the power, the excess is not a problem.

In other cases, we may have old tech that becomes better.
Maybe real-time Speech Recognition that was actually extremely good by not only recognizing the word but applying grammer rules to be able to figure out what word you said when it could not really make it out.

Yep, that BLOAT is getting bad. A lot of that bloat is writing os & programs to be backwards compatible with older devices and other programs.

I would like to see an OS that had backward compatibility as option rather than built-in. Even that backware compability should be restricted to 10 years or so.

I have an electronic roledex device that was made back in the early 90's (Pre Win95) which still had functionality to download the files built into XP. Why, for a $30 electronic organizer? Oh, yea, then XP had to have a patch to protect some stupid virus from exploiting the uploading capacity of the electronic organizer.

With Vista, the kernal was locked down. Aw shucks Norton and McAfee could not access the Vista Kernal. So MS had to give Norton et al access to the kernal. SO far there have been no exploits but we know such exploits will come. Hey, just lock out everybody you want and keep the kernnal tight.

 

[joefriday]

The point at which a CPU is good enough for the general user came during the hyperthreading P4/Celeron D/Athlon64/Sempron days of 2004 to 2005. Which was also the advent of decent IGPs for general use.

 

[speedbird]

If you think about it, Multi-cored cpus are fairly recent for Desktops, For a long time desktop computers were running single core CPUs. Dual cores made a huge impact in the responsiveness of home Desktop computers, where as Quad Core not so much impact. We will see more and more cores quickly I believe in the coming years, but unless software can keep up it's going to be pointless.

 

[Wisecracker]

I checked.

I asked if it was ok to have unprotected s_x with a skanky Ho. The answer was "Yes My Child".

Not having real confience in the answers generated on that website.

I asked, "Do male enhancement products really work?" And the response was ...

"Resist the Devil!"


For the most part (discounting the overall 'bloat factor' or malware infection) I think we've reached a sweet spot. Who cares if your menus open in 0.12345 secs as opposed to 0.22345 secs?

I takes longer for me to raise a cheek and faht - lol