Bob Munck wrote:
> > "A single silicon transistor today can only be seen in a microscope. In
> > a few years, it will take a microscope to see an entire chip of
> > transistors. ... In 1950, a transistor
> > cost $5. Today, it costs one-hundredth of a cent. In 2003, one
> > transistor will cost a microscopic nanocent.
>
> This is typical mass media technical ignorance. Chips are not
> shrinking in any significant way, and are not at all likely to
> become microscopic. Where would you attach the pins?
>
> If transistors cost one-hundredth of a cent, a 64Mb RAM would
> cost $6,700.00; on the other hand, if single transistors cost
> a "nanocent" in 2003, the 1024Mb RAM chips coming out around
> then will cost a penny. This Kelly guy is writing about
> the New Economy and he can't even do arithmetic?
Not only arithmetic, but problems with physics and economics too. If we
make chips so small that they approach particle size, they will be
incredibly vulnerable to failure when struck by alpha particles and
other stray oddities of physics.
Or, put another way. A .22 caliber bullet puts a nice round hole in the
side of a barn. But the barn doesn't fall over.
Reduce the barn wall to a .22 inch circle, the bullet eliminates it.
Chips have to reach a physical peak in size for this reason alone, not
to mention heat limitations and a host of other things. Cost curves
don't drop exponentially over time, they peak as they bruch up against
the walls of physical realities and production processes address new
challenges.
Brett
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
