Articles
Moore’s Law is Dead
Thursday, February 19, 2009 / PowerMax Culture
Back in 1965, Roger Moore uttered the now famous phrase, “Bond, James Bond.” Oh wait, that’s the wrong Moore. And Roger Moore wasn’t even James Bond until 1973. Okay, it was Gordon Moore of Intel, who most famously observed the trend of computing power doubling every two years, ultimately becoming known as Moore’s Law.
While technology gains are continuing to occur, and research into the atomic level of integrated circuits, as well as into quantum or optical technologies, may well allow Moore’s Law to be the guiding rule for another decade or more, it certainly has become apparent that personal computers are currently not anywhere close to seeing a doubling of speeds every two years. What’s always been true is that the speed of a chip, measured today in Gigahertz (GHz), is only one portion of a computer’s speed, it still has been remarkable to see that these speeds have really leveled out over the past year or two. Part of this phenomenon might be traced to the popularity of laptops, which are much harder to overpower due to size and heat restrictions. But even Apple’s top-of-the-line Mac Pro towers stayed at the same GHz offerings for most of 2008 and into 2009. During that time, the speed increases offered by new models have been negligible, GHz-wise. Apple even “upgraded” one of their MacBooks in 2008 with a slightly slower speed chip than the model it replaced. Clearly, things are leveling out.
Another reason for this may be attributed to the fact that a very large portion of personal computing use is being dedicated to tasks that really don’t need a ton of processing power. Indeed, user input is by far the most time-consuming task involving a computer. And many of those tasks are even being replaced by handheld devices such as the iPhone or netbooks with a fraction of a “traditional” computer’s power. You simply don’t need a Super Computer to write a letter, e-mail, or surf the web.
This is a challenge for computer makers such as Apple, who very much relies on built-in obsolescence to keep computer sales humming. After all, they wouldn’t have tens of billions of dollars in the bank today if no one needed to upgrade their computer for a decade. But soon we’ll see an operating system that will only work on Intel machines, which will create forced obsolescence on those who feel the need to have the latest OS and who have pre-Intel Macs, which will be fueled by apps that only will work on the latest OS. After that, it’s anybody’s guess as to how they’ll build in that money train.
In the meantime, as computers become more ubiquitous and the percentage of fanatical got-to-always-have-the-latest users become a smaller percentage of the overall user base, more and more people will work contentedly on older and older computers. And that’s the irony of Apple’s strategy to build in obsolescence: their computers are made better than just about anyone’s, and last far beyond what Apple might prefer to see in usability. At PowerMax, we sell pre-owned Macs that can sometimes get to be a decade old. But since they’re so well-made, if a user can complete his or her tasks on this far less expensive machine, then why not?
Once in a while, we’re asked if we would ever consider a Windows-based trade in process. The problem with that is the PC market is in a low-priced frenzy, meaning that most of those machines are not built all that well. Consequently, even a two-year-old Windows machine is worth almost nothing. When people are considering Mac or PC, they really ought to consider the trade-in value of the machine when considering cost differences. Obviously you wouldn’t buy a car that would depreciate to almost nothing in two years, while another model might hold 50% or more of it’s value. Even at twice the price, the more expensive car would be a better buy especially if you plan on driving it for more than two years. The same thing goes for computers: Macs just plain hold their value by an order of magnitude over a PC.
So while you need to consider what software you’re running and are going to run, and whether or not it will be supported by the chip set of a particular model, there are plenty of people who will run Macs based on G3, G4 or G5 technology for years to come. And we’re here to support you. Because while built-in obsolescence helps make the world go round (or maybe just adds another few billion to Apple’s war chest), it’s always good to have choice, and a company like ours that supports people no matter what model Mac they’re using. And we’ll continue to offer and support, and take trade-ins, on any Mac that has a worthwhile purpose.
Used & RSS feeds
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
How true. I have 2 year old Macbook Pro I use for my photography obsession that works just as well now as it did the day I bought it. Solidly made. It makes most Windows laptops look like cheap disposables. My four year old Dell takes an eternity just to boot. The only reason that I keep it is to run an Access application that I built for a specific purpose. If there was a Mac version of Access, that Dell would become a charity donation almost immediately.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I just converted my dad from Linux (which he moved to 2 years ago to get rid of Windows) to a 6 year old PowerMac G4 with dual 1ghz processors. It is speed comparable to many current PC’s, supports Leopard, and he really loves it. Old Macs are still better than modern PC’s!
March 4th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Thanks PowerMax. I’m very happy with my little G4 Quicksilver, which I know I will at some point wish to trade in. I got it from you guys and it has been 100% problem free. Thanks again for being here!
March 4th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Your final remarks about longevity of Macs is most telling. I bought my first G3 laptop in 1999.(My first Apple product)
After years of faithful service,I gave it to my son for relatively simple needs. (E-mail,word,spreadsheets etc.) Ten years later, it is still growing strong.It has had a bump up in RAM to the max.(192 to 512) The 8 gig HD is now 60 gigs and the original battery has been replaced. It does handle OS X and I really did not notice that it was an antique!
During the past 10 years, i can’t even remember how many desktop and laptop PC’s that I went through in my medical practice. Moore’s law is somewhat irrelevant for me and the build and parts quality is more important. J. Krause
March 5th, 2009 at 1:53 am
So true! I’m still using a 700MHz 14 inch G3 iBook – 1 of 3 Macs purchased from Powermax over the last decade (even though we live in New Zealand). The ram is maxed out, the hard drive doubled in size and thanks to your advice I’ve “tricked” it into running a Samsung 19 inch screen on 1440 x 900 resolution. A more recently purchased Toshiba laptop is not as flexible and won’t run the 1440 x 900 screen. The Mac may be old, and a little slow at times, but it pretty much handles everything I need for business and home use & I can use both screens at once! Keep promoting and selling Macs.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Uhhh – Actually Moore’s law is alive and well.
Firstly, to be accurate, Moore’s law actually relates to the number of transistors in a given chip, not speed, however popular culture has related it to speed, and history has largely seems to agree.
Secondly, the GHz of a processor is roughly analogous to the RPM of a car engine, in a given engine, a fast rpm (or GHz) will provide more power output than a lower rpm. However you can still imagine that a Porsche at 3000 rpm, might be more powerful than a volvo at 3500 rpm…
The raw speed of a computer is measured by a number of components, including CPU speed, HDD speed, as well as OS and software efficiency, amongst other things.
If you look at the new 2009 Mac Pro, and compare it to the Early 2008 Mac Pro, you will see that the raw CPU power increase ranges from 150 to 190%.
Check out the benchmarks on the Apple site: http://www.apple.com/au/macpro/performance.html
Pretty much bang on target for Moore’s Law…
March 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Points well taken Simon… I would confess that the headline was intended more to make a certain point, rather than really declaring the original axiom dead (it’s often been hijacked from the original premise, of which you are correct). And it’s that hijacked truism that I was referring to; being in the business for several decades I am observing that the actual real-life speed increases, which come from the collective aspects of computer design, are coming fewer and further between. And as far as the new Mac Pros, which are certainly great machines, if you believe the Apple benchmarks at face value, well… let’s just say marketing has a hand in the results and leave it at that.