 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2012 7:23, clipka wrote:
> "tiny little baby step"? After all, they're creating structure sizes
> nowadays where naive classic photolitpgraphy with ~400 nm UV light would
> fail utterly.
Somewhat relevant: http://htwins.net/scale2/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2012 7:56, Invisible wrote:
> Right. So that's why, even though 40nm technology already exists, they don't
> use it just to build (say) USB flash drives. (?)
Because the factories are very expensive to build (like, there's at most a
handful in the world), and they're busy building other things that give
bigger profits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2012 5:13, Invisible wrote:
> would it be prohibitively expensive?
Would it be more expensive than 4 16TB drives? Most likely.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Somewhat relevant: http://htwins.net/scale2/
An alpha helix is of comparable size to a carbon atom?
Really?
Even though an alpha helix is composed of dozens of amino acids which
are built out of dozens of carbon atoms?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> An alpha helix is of comparable size to a carbon atom?
> Really?
> Even though an alpha helix is composed of dozens of amino acids which
> are built out of dozens of carbon atoms?
You are being confused by the logarithmic nature of the scale. The
alpha helix and the carbon atom are not at the same zoom level, even
though they are close.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Assuming the supported resolution is changing proportionately, this
is actually quadratic growth in terms of number of pixels.
>
> The standard measurement for screen size is the length of the
diagonal.
I think my statement is still true.
On 3/8/2012 1:10 AM, Warp wrote:
> Slime<pov### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:
>> > Monitor screen sizes do not seem to follow this trend, however, and
>> > seem to grow a lot more linearly.
>
>> Assuming the supported resolution is changing proportionately, this is
>> actually quadratic growth in terms of number of pixels.
>
> The standard measurement for screen size is the length of the diagonal.
>
>> This is probably limited by graphics hardware in some way (although I'm
>> not sure how fast that grows in "power"). It's also limited by the fact
>> that popular OSs such as Windows still use pixels as a unit of
>> measurement, so there's limited benefit to higher resolutions as it
>> shrinks the size of important objects on screen.
>
> Resolution has little to do with screen size.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2012 19:36, Warp wrote:
> It's a common phenomenon that things like hard drive sizes, RAM sizes
> and processor speeds tend to grow at a superlinear rate over time in
> home computers. (I won't say "exponential" because someone recently
> complained about that, and I don't have hard data to back up that claim.)
> Very typically, for example, each new hard drive one buys tends to be
> larger than the combined sizes of all hard drives that person has bought
> in the past. (I'm of course talking about the average computer user rather
> than those who buy hard drives like candy, eg. because they need them for
> multimedia projects or something.)
>
> Monitor screen sizes do not seem to follow this trend, however, and
> seem to grow a lot more linearly.
I wouldn't have expected the physical diagonal size to increase
exponentially for obvious reasons, but you might have expected
resolution to do so (if you assume "pixel rate" or something could
double every 18 months, then the "dpi" should double every 3 years).
The main problem is that Windows doesn't work nicely with higher
resolutions. I had about 140ppi on my old laptop and even then the
standard windows GUI was getting too small to read. I experimented with
the higher dpi settings but lots of software didn't play nicely (missing
icons etc.) so in the end I just turned the screen resolution down.
Once a new version of Windows (and 3rd party software) is available with
proper support for higher resolutions, then I believe you will see the
drive for higher resolutions start for windows machines (not just
monitors, but graphics cards, display interfaces etc). Then a 22"
300ppi (5760x3240) display will be quite standard, and children will
laugh when told about the days when you could actually see the
individual pixels on a screen and the text was all a bit blocky or
blurry depending what setting you used.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wouldn't have expected the physical diagonal size to increase
> exponentially for obvious reasons, but you might have expected
> resolution to do so (if you assume "pixel rate" or something could
> double every 18 months, then the "dpi" should double every 3 years).
>
> The main problem is that Windows doesn't work nicely with higher
> resolutions.
/Windows/ doesn't support it? Or just that every 3rd-party crock of junk
ported from Windows 3.1 or only tested on one PC assumes that everybody
has exactly the same DPI?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why do you have to design, test, manufacture and sell a 64MB drive
> before you can attempt to make a 128MB one? How does the former help you
> do the latter? Why can't you just jump straight to 4GB? (Or perhaps even
> more than that?)
You need to learn how to make 4GB ones, or more correctly, how to build
a factory to mass produce 4GB ones. And you're not going to do that
overnight in the lab if you are currently only making 64MB ones. It
simply won't happen, you'll go bankrupt (because your competitors
figured out how to make 256MB ones and you didn't) before you figure it out.
The only way to do it is to stretch your existing process to make 128MB
or 256MB ones, trying to fix the odd few problems that will no doubt
come up. That is called research and development.
Once you have a stable process for 256MB ones, you can again try and
push to make 512MB or 1GB ones, you will no doubt come up against
different problems than you had last time, you might need some fairly
big steps in technology development, but it's possible.
> Then again, cars don't improve in performance at all. Today's cars have
> performance within a few percent of cars made 40 years ago. And yet,
> people still buy cars.
Compare pretty much any criteria and cars have vastly improved. MPG,
power, safety rating, braking distance, amount of rust, noise level,
pollution level, ride quality. It is quite an achievement given that
many of those factors are trade-offs against each other (eg better
safety means higher weight which means lower MPG, yet MPG has increased
significantly).
> On the other hand, pens and pencils don't improve in performance either,
> and they still sell plenty of those.
That's just because you don't work with designing pens :-) I'm pretty
sure they are continually using the latest materials and inks available,
you just don't notice that your pen doesn't snap as easily or
clog-up/stop working as often as it used to.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/04/2012 16:01, Invisible wrote:
>> I wouldn't have expected the physical diagonal size to increase
>> exponentially for obvious reasons, but you might have expected
>> resolution to do so (if you assume "pixel rate" or something could
>> double every 18 months, then the "dpi" should double every 3 years).
>>
>> The main problem is that Windows doesn't work nicely with higher
>> resolutions.
>
> /Windows/ doesn't support it? Or just that every 3rd-party crock of junk
> ported from Windows 3.1 or only tested on one PC assumes that everybody
> has exactly the same DPI?
Maybe it's just so clunky for devlopers to support it they don't bother?
I certainly have no idea how any of my programs would look. MS need
to make it easier/mandatory in the APIs and development tools to cater
for higher DPI environments (maybe they did that already for Windows 8,
haven't checked the latest versions).
Android is an example of a better way to do it (but probably not the
best way).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
