Stephen Lavedas wrote:

> Yeah, that problem with wavelengths reaching magnitudes less than the
> size of the electrons being moved (or at least too close to be usable)
> it should actually be getting quite difficult very soon.
>
> Steve
>
> Markus Becker wrote:
> >
> > portelli wrote:
> > >
> > > Hasn't Moore's Law already been broken?
> >
> > No, it still holds. Perhaps you meant what I mistakenly
> > wrote ;-). Not the processor _speed_ but the number of
> > transistors doubles every 18 months. Together with the
> > MHz increase this more than doubles the speed of the
> > processors. And, as far as what I have read, it will
> > go on until approx. 2015, then it will reach some
> > principal problem concerning quantum physics.
> > But the cute technicians at <insert_favourate_manufacturer
> > here> will have invented some new technique to keep
> > Moore's law going...
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > --

> >  Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens

this is just until Quantum computer processors come out ( at least 20 years
hence). they have ONE prototype working (only can pick an answer to a
preprogrammed question 400x the fastest super computer) but the problem is
right now the quantum computer weighs 3 tons (like the original mainframes
which PCs are based on), maybe soon we will have megafast computers based on
quantum physics like the one stated above....

psychomek

Post a reply to this message