February 1998
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL Alex Oren
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL Nathan Yospe
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL Richard Woolcock
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL Chris Gray
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL coder@ibm.net
- OT: Following in the footsteps of JCL Marc Eyrignoux
- Ada? Andrew C.M. McClintock
- Monthly FAQ posting Koster, Raph
- Monthly FAQ posting Adam Wiggins
- Monthly FAQ posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Chris Gray
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting J C Lawrence
- Monthly FAQ Posting J C Lawrence
- Monthly FAQ Posting Alex Oren
- Monthly FAQ Posting Greg Miller
- Monthly FAQ Posting s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling Lo
- Monthly FAQ Posting Koster, Raph
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling Lo
- Monthly FAQ Posting Greg Miller
- Monthly FAQ Posting Marian Griffith
- Monthly FAQ Posting Greg Miller
- Monthly FAQ Posting Ling Lo
- Databases Shawn Halpenny
- OT: This is a test coder@ibm.net
- OT: This is a test Alex Oren
- Clients and things [Was: OT: This is a test] Matt Chatterley
- Clients and things [Was: OT: This is a test] coder@ibm.net
- Clients and things [Was: OT: This is a test] Matt Chatterley
- MUD Development Digest Dr. Cat
- DBs and Events Greg Munt
- DBs and Events Nathan Yospe
- DBs and Events Greg Munt
- DBs and Events Nathan Yospe
- DBs and Events Felix A. Croes
- DBs and Events Jon A. Lambert
- DBs and Events coder@ibm.net
- DBs and Events s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- DBs and Events Jon A. Lambert
- DBs and Events coder@ibm.net
- (subject missing) Ben Greear
- META: Unsubscribed users dur to bounces coder@ibm.net
- META: Unsubscribed users dur to bounces Adam Wiggins
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release Ben Greear
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release Ben Greear
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release Richard Woolcock
- Source Code Release Ben Greear
- Source Code Release Chris Gray
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release coder@ibm.net
- Source Code Release Richard Woolcock
- Source Code Release Stephen Zepp
- Source Code Release Jon A. Lambert
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release Jon A. Lambert
- Source Code Release Greg Munt
- Source Code Release Travis Casey
- Source Code Release Jon A. Lambert
- Source Code Release Jon A. Lambert
- [RESEARCH]MUD articles archive (fwd) Greg Munt
- Socket programming (Was: The impact of the web on muds) Jon Leonard
- Socket programming (was: The impact of the web on muds) Vadim Tkachenko
- Socket programming (was: The impact of the web on muds) Richard Woolcock
- byte-code anyone? Chris Gray
- byte-code anyone? Jon Leonard
- byte-code anyone? Chris Gray
- byte-code anyone? Jon Leonard
- byte-code anyone? Chris Gray
- user-centered design (was Clients) Mike Sellers
- OT: Linux g++ Greg Munt
- OT: Linux g++ Ben Greear
- OT: Linux g++ coder@ibm.net
- OT: Linux g++ Shawn Halpenny
- OT: Linux g++ Chris Gray
- OT: Clients Vadim Tkachenko
- OT: Clients Adam Wiggins
- OT: Clients coder@ibm.net
- META: OS wars coder@ibm.net
- META: OS wars Mike Sellers
- Clients Stephen Zepp
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Brandon J. Rickman
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:24:56, Mike Sellers <mike@online-alchemy.com> wrote:
>-- Moore's Law still rules. :)
The tiresome Moore's Law rhetoric. I made a feint at this topic on
another thread (actually it might have been this one...) but Mike's
convenient rehash has given me a new opening.
Moore's Law: the computational power of computers doubles every <make
up a number between 12 and 60> months.
Problems with Moore's Law:
"computational power" merely refers to a measure of how many operations
a chip can perform in a fixed amount of time. The higher the MIPS
(Million Instructions Per Second), the "faster" the chip. Like the
benchmark numbers used in computer ads, this measure is pretty meaningless
without a context. I could design a chip that returns the value of
sin(PI) faster than every other chip, so if we compare the speed at
which my chip is able to computer a certain operation (in particular,
sin(PI)) my chip looks like a winner. Unfortunately my chip is awfully
slow at calculating sqrt(4). The functional power of a machine is
highly subjective and is particularly dependent on software. You
can do less with more using Windows95, for example.
Second, the amount of computational power available on the consumer market
is far beyond what anybody could actually use. The average non-business
computer user does not have and does not need these machines. In fact,
most businesses don't need these machines either, but buying new
equipment is always good when you can write off the depreciation on
your taxes (and you can't write off things like employee benefits or
long-term business planning). The people that are actually using the
fastest available machines are usually closely tied to the computer
chip industry in the first place, like the chip designers using fast
chips to design faster chips.
On the plus side, as big business needlessly upgrades their machines the
"obsolete" machines are falling into the hands of artists, educators, and
non-first world citizens. This market is not reflected in Intel's
sales reports and Intel has no idea what people may be doing with those
machines.
Third, designing for non-existant technology is a dumb-assed design
constraint.
[Aside: there is the old argument that goes:
If I start computing today it will take me three years to finish.
If I start computing a year from now it will only take me one year (two
years total).
Therefore I should wait until next year.
This is a clever bit of rubbish. If the task will take _at most_ three
years today, then there is a chance it will finish _in less than two
years_.]
Designing for an imaginary machine is a gamble. Some people can afford
to make that gamble, and some of them might make a lot of money off of
it. But overall, blindly accepting high-stake risks is not only
foolhardy, it is bad business practice.
Lurking in all of this is the trendy (since WWII) practice of Designed
Obsolescence. Large groups of people (artists, educators, and non-first
world citizens) have realized that obsolete technologies aren't. People
still use Windows 3.1. The Y2K problem is a problem because systems
put in place twenty years ago are _still working_ (maybe not the
original hardware, but the original architecture). The problem
with Designed Obsolescence is that isn't sustainable; at some point
a product is released that is of superior quality and future demand
drops off.
Moore's Law has been manipulated by an aggressive advertising campaign.
Computers now do less with more. Productivity has not increased.
(Productivity was hardly even measured before computers entered the
workplace, so the argument is moot.)
This all began with:
>I had a fascinating discussion with a guy from Intel recently.
Hardly an objective source. I once heard that VRML was the future of
3D, but I think it was Mark Pesce who said it.
To somehow tie this back to a list-relevant topic: Mike is advocating
that product cycles should be targeted towards cutting-edge machines,
because cutting-edge is cool? important? profitable? Someone has to
have analyzed this claim with actual numbers by now. If a product
is delayed by six months/a year (an obvious risk when you are pretending
to program on a machine that you don't have) doesn't that indicate there
needs to be something more to the product than "cutting edge" design?
I'm all for progress in the world of muds, but I think the design
criteria, especially for the upcoming generation of graphical
muds/UOII/whatever, should be focused on the strengths of what is
already successful.
A short list:
- having a large and divers world to explore that can be affected by
players
- semi-intelligent interaction with non-player creatures.
- emphasis on social relationships and actions, in particular:
- being able to walk around naked/inappropriately dressed
- tinysex
Things I don't buy that have not been proven successful:
- wholesale ecological/economic simulation
- high-bandwidth/dedicated network solutions
Things I don't know what to think about:
- high turnover rates designed to increase software or subscription
sales (as perfected by America On-Line)
- Brandon Rickman - ashes@zennet.com -
While I have never previously found a need for a .sig, this
may be considered one for the purposes of this list - Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Adam Wiggins
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Chris Gray
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) coder@ibm.net
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Brandon J. Rickman
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Mike Sellers
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Chris Gray
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Ben Greear
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Ling
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Brandon J. Rickman
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) coder@ibm.net
- Moore's Law sucks (was: 3D graphics) Alex Oren
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) Vadim Tkachenko
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) coder@ibm.net
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) Vadim Tkachenko
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) coder@ibm.net
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) coder@ibm.net
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) Jon A. Lambert
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) Raph & Kristen Koster
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) coder@ibm.net
- Version Control (was: DBs and Events) Felix A. Croes
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Jon Leonard
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) coder@ibm.net
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Vadim Tkachenko
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Caliban Tiresias Darklock
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) J C Lawrence
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) J C Lawrence
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Adam Wiggins
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Vadim Tkachenko
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Vadim Tkachenko
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Adam Wiggins
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) J C Lawrence
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Adam Wiggins
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Ben Greear
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Adam Wiggins
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) Jon A. Lambert
- Net protocols for MUDing (was: Moore's Law sucks) J C Lawrence
- VEIL (was: Clients) Brandon Gillespie
- LDMs (large dynamic maps) was Unique items Mike Sellers
- Describing the environment Stephen Zepp
- Describing the environment Richard Woolcock
- Back on the list Niklas Elmqvist
- Back on the list Chris Gray
- Back on the list coder@ibm.net
- Unique items The Eternal City
- Unique items coder@ibm.net
- Position sorting Adam Wiggins
- Position sorting coder@ibm.net
- Unique items coder@ibm.net
- Unique items Nathan F Yospe
- BOOK: Myer's Silverlock coder@ibm.net
- BOOK: Myer's Silverlock Chris Gray
- BOOK: Myer's Silverlock Adam Wiggins
- Dynamic Loading of Modules (was: Back on the list) Niklas Elmqvist
- Dynamic Loading of Modules (was: Back on the list) Vadim Tkachenko
- Dynamic Loading of Modules (was: Back on the list) J C Lawrence
- Dynamic Loading of Modules (was: Back on the list Jon A. Lambert
- Net protocols for MUDing s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Net protocols for MUDing Stephen Zepp
- Net protocols for MUDing Chris Gray
- Net protocols for MUDing Adam Wiggins
- Net protocols for MUDing J C Lawrence
- Net protocols for MUDing Shawn Halpenny
- Net protocols for MUDing J C Lawrence
- Net protocols for MUDing Chris Gray
- Dynamic Loading of Modules Niklas Elmqvist
- Senses (was: The MLI Project) s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- bar-time (was The MLI Project) Mike Sellers
- 3D engines for MUDs (was: The MLI Project) Niklas Elmqvist
- 3D engines for MUDs (was: The MLI Project) J C Lawrence
- 3D engines for MUDs (was: The MLI Project) Michael Hohensee
- 3D engines for MUDs (was: The MLI Project) Miroslav Silovic
- 3D engines for MUDs (was: The MLI Project) Michael Hohensee
- Why not compile java into object code? Ben Greear
- Why not compile java into object code? Cynbe ru Taren
- Why not compile java into object code? Caliban Tiresias Darklock
- Why not compile java into object code? Nathan F Yospe
- Why not compile java into object code? Niklas Elmqvist
- Why not compile java into object code? Ben Greear
- Why not compile java into object code? Jon A. Lambert
- Why not compile java into object code? Travis Casey
- Why not compile java into object code? Chris Gray
- Tutorial: Comments on Hand-crafting a compiler Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part I: Introduction Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part II: Expression Parsing Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part I: Introductio Chris Gray
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part I: Introductio s001gmu@nova.wright.edu
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part I: Introductio coder@ibm.net
- MUD Development Digest Dr. Cat
- MUD Development Digest Koster, Raph
- MUD Development Digest Mike Sellers
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part III: More Expressions Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part IV: Interpreters Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part V: Control Constructs Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part VI: Boolean Expressions Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Comments Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part VII: Lexical Scanning Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part VIII: A Little Philosophy Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part IX: A Top View Jon A. Lambert
- Tutorial: Let's build a Compiler! - Part X: Introducing TINY Jon A. Lambert
- Compilers: Toy available for ftp Chris Gray