Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 25th Jan 2011 15:19 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Hardware, Embedded Systems Thinking that HP's memristors can't arrive early enough on the market? Here's competition already! A team at North Carolina State University, led by Dr Paul Franzon, has unveiled the "double floating-gate field effect transistor", a component based on the same principles as flash memory which would allow to store data for "a couple of years" in around 15 nanoseconds.
Thread beginning with comment 459708
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: No trust in...
by vodoomoth on Wed 26th Jan 2011 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE: No trust in..."
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

"advances with storage technology" are advances in hardware, just like multicore CPUs are advances in chip technology. I guess hardware advances need the appropriate software to be useful, that's where drivers enter the stage, right? That's also probably the reason why I've heard people say that a multicore CPU is useless on Windows 2000.

And until now, in my opinion, software vendors excel in not making a good use of advances in hardware, notably by inflating the sizes of their products beyond what's understandable to me. "A good use" as in "a use that seems to exploit the hardware advances to the fullest extent".

That's what my previous rant was supposed to convey. I hope I'm clear now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: No trust in...
by Laurence on Wed 26th Jan 2011 15:21 in reply to "RE[2]: No trust in..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"advances with storage technology" are advances in hardware, just like multicore CPUs are advances in chip technology. I guess hardware advances need the appropriate software to be useful, that's where drivers enter the stage, right? That's also probably the reason why I've heard people say that a multicore CPU is useless on Windows 2000.

Multicore CPUs depend on the kernel's capbility at multi-threading and third-party software developers in writing threadded applications. It's not really a driver issue.

Furthermore, multicore CPUs are not useless on Windowss 2000. In fact, I have a SMP Win2k Pro box at home (granted it's dual processor rather than single-processor, multi-core, but from the software side of things remain the same). Windows 2000 worked wonderfully with it.


And until now, in my opinion, software vendors excel in not making a good use of advances in hardware, notably by inflating the sizes of their products beyond what's understandable to me. "A good use" as in "a use that seems to exploit the hardware advances to the fullest extent".

That's what my previous rant was supposed to convey. I hope I'm clear now.


I see your point now but I think you have your argument backwards. You shouldn't be looking pessimistically at new hardware because software houses can't develop applications to make good use of it or (more often the case) write lazy / unnecessarily bloated applications expecting the hardware advances to pick up the slack. New hardware is a good thing - particularly in the storage arena where bottlenecks are known and don't exist due to shoddy drivers nor poor 3rd software development.

I do agree that some software developers should be sacked and I know of plenty of "mission critical" solutions that are so badly programmed it's actually quite scary. But sadly this will always be a fact of life. So I personally think it's a bit depressing to tarnish new advances as pointless.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No trust in...
by vodoomoth on Wed 26th Jan 2011 15:52 in reply to "RE[3]: No trust in..."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

So I personally think it's a bit depressing to tarnish new advances as pointless.

OK, but I didn't tarnish anything or think it's pointless: I've even cited the applications where that new storage would be useful to me.

Multicore CPUs depend on the kernel's capbility at multi-threading and third-party software developers in writing threadded applications. It's not really a driver issue.

I didn't say it's a driver issue either. Both the driver example and the windows 2000 thing were meant to illustrate "I guess hardware advances need the appropriate software to be useful". I'm starting to think I write a very bad English.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No trust in...
by helf on Wed 26th Jan 2011 20:54 in reply to "RE[3]: No trust in..."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm running one of the higher end revisions of win2k (I forget which one) at home as a desktop OS on a quadcore cpu. Works great ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2