Is it time to stop research in Computer Architecture ?
|
From: Gavin Scott on 16 Oct 2009 17:19 Piotr Wyderski <piotr.wyderski(a)mothers.against.spam.gmail.com> wrote: > Once upon a time there was an attempt to satisfy "the aims of science / > pursuit of excellence". > It was called Itanium. Turned out to be a multi-billion dollar flop. Well, the flop is still a multi-billion dollar business I think, and we support some thousand(s) of them that are actively used by some of the world's largest companies for a substantial portion of their critical computing needs. There were perhaps more new and interesting ISA features in Itanium than in any other I can recall. You may not like them, or may not consider them a success, but it's definitely in the realm of "new and interesting within the last 20 years" in at least a few respects. G.
From: Gavin Scott on 16 Oct 2009 17:22 "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <ag-news(a)patten-glew.net> wrote: > I think that the human brain points out the capabilities of > relatively slow computation, albeit with complex elements and high > connectivity. Of course everyone ignored my suggestion that old architects might want to try reading some new cellular biology texts, but I think there are many interesting sources for inspiration there. Like the fact that you can have interconnect that requires zero energy, etc. G.
From: Robert Myers on 16 Oct 2009 20:58 On Oct 15, 12:44 am, Jean <alertj...(a)rediffmail.com> wrote: > In last couple of decades the exponential increase in computer > performance was because of the advancements in both computer > architecture and fabrication technology. > What will be the case for future ? Can I comment that the next major > leap in computer performance will not because of breakthroughs in > computer architecture but rather from new underlying technology ? Here's the real deal. As my friend, whom I otherwise respect, says, the discovery of computers was one of the most signal events in human history, perhaps the most important since the discovery of writing. Ask anyone in the business. Everyone recognized that reality, and the smartest intellects ever, including the dead and the as yet to be born, were conjured, and everything that could be done was done in the first six days. Ask anyone in the business. They were there. Robert.
From: "Andy "Krazy" Glew" on 17 Oct 2009 01:38 Gavin Scott wrote: > "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <ag-news(a)patten-glew.net> wrote: >> I think that the human brain points out the capabilities of >> relatively slow computation, albeit with complex elements and high >> connectivity. > > Of course everyone ignored my suggestion that old architects might > want to try reading some new cellular biology texts, but I think > there are many interesting sources for inspiration there. Like the > fact that you can have interconnect that requires zero energy, etc. > > G. Why do you think you were ignored? Some of us even went and took classes on the topic.
From: nmm1 on 17 Oct 2009 05:26
In article <e3da8840-f715-4a5d-9170-7a93c9b4ae5f(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 15, 12:44=A0am, Jean <alertj...(a)rediffmail.com> wrote: >> In last couple of decades the exponential increase in computer >> performance was because of the advancements in both computer >> architecture and fabrication technology. >> What will be the case for future ? Can I comment that the next major >> leap in computer performance will not because of breakthroughs in >> computer architecture but rather from new underlying technology ? > >Here's the real deal. > >As my friend, whom I otherwise respect, says, the discovery of >computers was one of the most signal events in human history, perhaps >the most important since the discovery of writing. Ask anyone in the >business. Well, I am, and I strongly disagree. The steam engine was FAR more important, as the concept it introduced led to all forms of powered machinery. I could mention other things, including chemistry. Computers are vastly overrated. >Everyone recognized that reality, and the smartest intellects ever, >including the dead and the as yet to be born, were conjured, and >everything that could be done was done in the first six days. Ask >anyone in the business. They were there. Well, I wasn't there at the beginning of the modern era, but knew a fair number of people who were. There is some truth in that, but it is more accurate to say that everything was done later was only invented only in princple, as its delivery needed advances in process technology. People knew how to build a functional steam locomotive in Hero's day - they didn't have the technological base to do it. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |