Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: OT: A little history
From: pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig)
Date: Wed Jan 26 15:08:00 2005
References: <20050125230316.88242.qmail@web50501.mail.yahoo.com> <43E0A3D38689FDAEFC82F82E@[192.168.1.107]> <008a01c50335$2d972f80$4649c33e@symke> <41F7EAA4.7080509@summaventures.com> <df7ac6779609858eb7e440b423fb5e43@btinternet.com>

Depends on your metric. The processors are **capable** of running faster. 
That's 
the factor of n; but Apple etc would argue that you were hobbling it by not 
using 64-bit dual processor PS!! AS far as I am aware the only widely 
available 
s/w that can use the potential performance is gaming stuff. There's loads in 
labs and research programmes, but it isn't for consumer use.

I am always wrily amused when I am told that I am getting Office as a bundle 
on 
a dual 64-bit machine running at 2.5 GHz. For a spreadsheet and a WP 
package??

But the G4/5 are well designed and more efficient in instructions per cycle 
terms than Intel's offerings on the whole.

Peter


Frank Dernie wrote:

> I don't know Peter,
> My most exigent software is Photoshop. I have a twin 1Ghz G4 Quicksilver 
> Mac with 1.5Gb of RAM. Whilst it is very much quicker with some software 
> the G5 twin 2.5GHz Mac is not twice as fast as my machine on Photoshop, 
> despite having 64-bit chips running 2.5 times faster with faster bus and 
> discs!
> Frank
> 
> On 26 Jan, 2005, at 19:08, Peter Dzwig wrote:
> 
>> Simon,
>> this aint actually true: at present we see a factor of 2 or so every 
>> 18 months (about)in processor performance. So when you move from a 500 
>> Mhz machine you go to a 1GHz or 2 GHz machine in about 18 months. 
>> Order of magnitude performance changes come (very roughly) every 4 yrs 
>> if you look at it from the level of chip performance. But if you look 
>> at it from the overall performance perspective, so many factors change 
>> simultaneously that effective throughput changes at least that 
>> frequently.
>>
>> But sure as hell things are fed through on carefully pre-arranged 
>> timetables. I can think of many cases where a chip has sat in a lab 
>> (mine or those of others) and has been held back for more than simple 
>> manufacturing problems.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> animal wrote:
>>
>>> I have to disagree,from what i was taught in university ,order of 
>>> magnitude steps in computing are roughly 6 years apart.The 
>>> improvements consumers can buy in that period are carefully fed in to 
>>> the market to maximise profits.
>>> best regards
>>> simon jessurun
>>> amsterdam
>>> the netherlands
>>>
>>>> Having spent the majority of my life working for technology 
>>>> manufacturing companies, I can assure you that this is absolutely 
>>>> untrue.
>>>>
>>>> While there may be industries in which there is planned 
>>>> obsolescence, the computer industry is not one of them.
>>>>
>>>> The issue in the computer industry is that the engineers keep coming 
>>>> up with new stuff that is very much better than what existed a year 
>>>> ago. If you don't sell it, then your competitors will. If you don't 
>>>> innovate, you go out of business. Relentless innovation leaves a 
>>>> trail of obsolete devices, but if you start feeling sorry for the 
>>>> people who have to buy new ones, and slow down a little, they'll 
>>>> just buy from your competitors.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, quite the opposite is true. Development in the technology 
>>>> industry is in general hindered by a desire to be compatible with 
>>>> the past. If the hardware and software companies didn't worry about 
>>>> compatibility with the past, they could probably innovate 20% faster 
>>>> than they are doing now.
>>>>
>>>> No one is forcing you to buy newer faster better cameras and 
>>>> computers. As many people have said here, a 2.1 megapixel camera 
>>>> still takes great pictures. So why are camera companies racing to 
>>>> make and sell cameras with more megapixels? Because people will buy 
>>>> them. People want them. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just market 
>>>> demand at work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe one of the basic premises of contemporary
>>>>> technology development is the concept of "planned
>>>>> obsolescence," with the deliberate goal of encouraging
>>>>> consumers to buy new tools on a regular basis, in
>>>>> lock-step with the constantly increasing profit motive
>>>>> of the manufacturers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 





Replies: Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)
In reply to: Message from lowiemanuel at yahoo.ca (Emanuel Lowi) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)
Message from reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Brian Reid) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)
Message from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)
Message from pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] RE: OT: A little history)