Moore's Law Keeps Going, Defying Expectations

[ryan]

You made a direct claim that it was not up for debate.

And yet, here you are...

You shouldn't take it so literally when you see the context it's in. The future of Moore's law is debatable. What it has done in the past is not up for debate because we know what it has done in the past.

 

[bilby]

You made a direct claim that it was not up for debate.

And yet, here you are...

You shouldn't take it so literally when you see the context it's in. The future of Moore's law is debatable. What it has done in the past is not up for debate because we know what it has done in the past.

It is an observation. It hasn't 'done' anything.

'You shouldn't take it so literally' is a phrase that almost always means 'I fucked up, and said something that turns out to be wrong, but refuse to admit it'.

Sorry, but you don't get to pretend you didn't write what you wrote; we can all read it.

And your continuing to debate it is not a very effective strategy for reducing the evidence that it is, contrary to your assertion, up for debate.

You are dismissive of my criticism of your comment, on the basis that such criticism is too harsh given the context; but the main reason for my objection to your comment was that it was itself a needlessly harsh criticism of Jimmy Higgins's comment, which he prefaced with "I suppose, I've always thought (perhaps mistakenly) that...". You don't get to do that and then to claim that your use of the word 'roughly' should shield your criticism from being criticised in its turn.

 

[ryan]

You shouldn't take it so literally when you see the context it's in. The future of Moore's law is debatable. What it has done in the past is not up for debate because we know what it has done in the past.

You are dismissive of my criticism of your comment, on the basis that such criticism is too harsh given the context; but the main reason for my objection to your comment was that it was itself a needlessly harsh criticism of Jimmy Higgins's comment, which he prefaced with "I suppose, I've always thought (perhaps mistakenly) that...". You don't get to do that and then to claim that your use of the word 'roughly' should shield your criticism from being criticised in its turn.

You're being ridiculous.

 

[dystopian]

Seriously, gaming is the single driving force?

For home computers? Yes, pretty much. What else is the average consumer going to use it for that requires ever more CPU/GPU power? Browsing the web? Nope. Doing spreadsheets? Nope. If you're looking for whatever pushes the need to upgrade a personal computer, you're pretty much looking at gaming and little else. There's other things that could drive someone to upgrade (media editing for instance), but that's not really applicable to the average consumer. And with games being developed with the slowest of the pack in mind (consoles) instead of catering specifically to the best hardware available, the rate at which a computer becomes obsolete is slower even if the rate of actual technological advance might be the same or higher.