Teh_speleegn_polease your suppose to set your clock ahead 1 hour for DST not 2 decades back. x86 will die (Intel themselves failed to do that), Apple is doomed, Moore's Law will fail at 100nm the list of wrong 90s predications could fill a book. Alpha is dead, Itanic will soon join it, POWER is on life support, MIPS is a shadow of its former self, don't think Oracle is too interested is SPARC. ARM may keep its niche, but it won't deliver the KO punch.
Today's emulators 10+ years from now?
|
03-12-2014, 06:34 PM
I don't see x86 dying any time soon (next 5-10 years). There is just no alternative to it (and no, ARM is not an alternative for anything other than netbooks).
delroth: Yeah, it's very unlikely to drop x86 soon but imo still more likely than dropping polygon based gpus
03-12-2014, 11:39 PM
(03-12-2014, 05:29 PM)lamedude Wrote: Teh_speleegn_polease your suppose to set your clock ahead 1 hour for DST not 2 decades back. x86 will die (Intel themselves failed to do that), Apple is doomed, Moore's Law will fail at 100nm the list of wrong 90s predications could fill a book. Alpha is dead, Itanic will soon join it, POWER is on life support, MIPS is a shadow of its former self, don't think Oracle is too interested is SPARC. ARM may keep its niche, but it won't deliver the KO punch. My suppose? Which suppose? I don't have a suppose. Also, I can't tell if you're supporting my point or not. Your tone and phrasing suggests that you are arguing against me, but your point - that x86 will die - is similar to my point. So I'm somewhat confused. 03-13-2014, 01:21 AM
(03-12-2014, 07:20 PM)degasus Wrote: delroth: Yeah, it's very unlikely to drop x86 soon but imo still more likely than dropping polygon based gpus I don't know about that. GPUs are heading more and more towards being general purpose, fast SIMD/SMT processors. I wouldn't be surprised to see graphics-specific features like rasterization and z-sorting becoming more configurable/replaceable in the future. At least I find this way more likely than x86 becoming obsolete / being emulated on other architectures. In the end, not much is changing: people create new interesting architectures that are used for coprocessing (GPUs, Tilera-style many cores architecture, things like the new Micron automaton CPU, ...), but where things have standardized on x86 nothing has come close to replacing it (reminder: phones might have standardized on ARM, but they never standardized on x86 in the past). 03-13-2014, 05:23 PM
teh_speleegn_polease Wrote:Also, I can't tell if you're supporting my point or not. Your tone and phrasing suggests that you are arguing against me, but your point - that x86 will die - is similar to my point. So I'm somewhat confused. Seems pretty clear to me. He's arguing against you. He's saying your prediction was common 2 decades ago. Back then everybody knew that " x86 will die (Intel themselves failed to do that), Apple is doomed, Moore's Law will fail at 100nm" despite all those predictions ending up wrong. You need to read the entire sentence and look at the context to understand that when he said "x86 will die" he's stating it as one of the incorrect predictions of the 90s. He is in no way stating it as a fact. He then goes on to list all the potential competitors to x86 and why they can't/didn't replace it. teh_speleegn_polease Wrote:I'm just thinking that it would be weird if 100 years from now, all computers ran almost the same way they do today. They won't. They didn't 36 years ago when x86 was introduced. But like I said you can dramatically change how the machine works at every level and still implement support for the same languages pretty easily in most cases. You just need a bunch of circuits to translate the ISA language into the hardwares own internal machine code language. Which all x86 cpus have had since the 90s. Not only do todays x86 cpus have radically different core architectures but they also have radically different internal machine languages. Which are constantly changed. As long as some form of translator (decoder) remains in place though x86 code is still supported. teh_speleegn_polease Wrote:I am not assuming that quantum computing WILL inevitably happen no matter what. I am only assuming that for the purpose of the discussion of what will happen IF it does emerge, not to have to litter every sentence with phrases like the one I just quoted. I guess I should have made that clearer. Stating what will happen if it does emerge is still a series of baseless assumptions though. And you used language multiple times in your post that suggested you were claiming that it is inevitable. While in the very next sentence implying you weren't. Very confusing. teh_speleegn_polease Wrote:But look at it this way: say you have a 1/1,000,000 chance of winning. The chance of winning for two days in a row is 1/1,000,000,000,000. The chance of winning three days in a row is 1/1*10^-18. And so on. That's an exponential drop. No it's not. All you've just stated is that as number of days until your death increases the chances of winning decreases exponentially, which is true. But your lifespan isn't infinite. Nor does it keep increasing. Each day you live decreases the number of remaining days and therefore increases your chances of winning on every remaining day. Not the other way around. If you lose well then your chances go straight down to 0% since you've already lost.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 03-14-2014, 12:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2014, 12:25 AM by teh_speleegn_polease.)
(03-13-2014, 05:23 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: Seems pretty clear to me. He's arguing against you. He's saying your prediction was common 2 decades ago. Back then everybody knew that " x86 will die (Intel themselves failed to do that), Apple is doomed, Moore's Law will fail at 100nm" despite all those predictions ending up wrong. You need to read the entire sentence and look at the context to understand that when he said "x86 will die" he's stating it as one of the incorrect predictions of the 90s. He is in no way stating it as a fact. He then goes on to list all the potential competitors to x86 and why they can't/didn't replace it. Ah ok. I'm not arguing about my point anymore though. 'NaturalViolence Wrote:No it's not. All you've just stated is that as number of days until your death increases the chances of winning decreases exponentially, which is true. But your lifespan isn't infinite. Nor does it keep increasing. Each day you live decreases the number of remaining days and therefore increases your chances of winning on every remaining day. Not the other way around. If you lose well then your chances go straight down to 0% since you've already lost. What does my lifespan have to do with it? My original question - which was a purely theoretical thought experiment, not an attempt to predict when quantum computing will emerge, IF it will emerge, or anything of the sort - was: "If you play the lottery every day, at which point in time will the chances of quantum computing emerging at that point be equal to the chances of you winning the lottery every day up to that point?" As I said, this isn't realistic or supposed to model reality. I assumed that the further you go in time, the more likely quantum computing is to emerge - chances are, (IF it ever happens) it will have already happened in 150 years, but it will probably not happen tomorrow. While the chances of having a winning streak of lottery are the opposite - you have a small chance of winning today AND tomorrow, but it's almost impossible that you will win every day for 150 years (regardless of whether you are even alive at that point - maybe your son will continue the "experiment" for you). So I was wondering at which point the chances would be equal. That said, this is turning into a rather pointless argument that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, and I don't think it's worth arguing over such a small thing. 03-14-2014, 10:36 AM
It is technically on-topic. But sure, I'll drop it.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)