uP lithography has hit a plateau--Moore's Law is sleeping--so who isexcited about EUV!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RayLopez99
  • Start date Start date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithography

This will make tomorrows PC chips as fast as a Pentium II was to a x486 chip. At least 4 times to 8 times faster, if not an order of magnitude (10 times) faster.

Now that would put some excitement back into buying a PC! I would say another four years from now we'll see the first generation.

RL
Click to expand...

Problem is that PC's are already fast enough, ultimate performance
doesn't matter anymore. They are now looking at more convenient uses of
a PC, such as tablets, which requires lower-power PC's.

Yousuf Khan
 
Problem is that PC's are already fast enough, ultimate performance
doesn't matter anymore. They are now looking at more convenient uses of
a PC, such as tablets, which requires lower-power PC's.

Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...

Hardware and to an extent development and research has always, to a
point regarded for traditional, surpassed or waited for application
and software to play catch up;- what's not written in stone, however,
is technological development that within itself can sell by dint or
face of its evident virtues if not a successful marketing. The
tablets are perhaps a bit of both, having evident appeal while
devolving from literacy into a easily assimilable, substandard
computer, an aide thereof as it were with augmentative if not uniquely
positioned microprocessing properties. Speed, as he's proposing (I
haven't looked into the article) at a lower cost production benefit
would be outright adapted by the industry, of course, without our
say;- whereas if and sufficiently significant, say were this
ultraviolet thingy not someone talking out a lame streak out the
proverbial Butt of Deadends, it may pose worthwhile merits, that ought
not be ruled out on any presently erroneous perception that presumes
better methodology is outdated because our means is not yet exhausted
over to-day's programs. Take that same reasoning over to the car
industry and just imagine a pure paucity of Americans without all the
pink and purple car models and their television antennas mounted so
stately atop such finely tuned upper-tier discrimination.
 
Problem is that PC's are already fast enough, ultimate performance
doesn't matter anymore. They are now looking at more convenient uses of
a PC, such as tablets, which requires lower-power PC's.

Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...

I find compiling code for relatively small programs takes a long time, and even for complex documents in Word (I have one on right now that's 300 pages long) there's a noticeable lag when doing stuff, so I think there's room for improvement IMO. I'm sure a complex spreadsheet would also have annoying lag.

But I agree that for simple 140 character texts sent by teens, and most light users, PCs and tablets and even mobile phones are "fast enough", as wellas for low-res videos shown on small mobile screens.

RL
 
I find compiling code for relatively small programs takes a long time, and even for complex documents in Word (I have one on right now that's 300 pages long) there's a noticeable lag when doing stuff, so I think there's room for improvement IMO. I'm sure a complex spreadsheet would also have annoying lag.

But I agree that for simple 140 character texts sent by teens, and most light users, PCs and tablets and even mobile phones are "fast enough", as well as for low-res videos shown on small mobile screens.

RL
Click to expand...


Well I still need faster processors/memory/storage. I publish a
genealogy book (PDF) every year for my family organization (generated
by my genealogy program, but fixed up in Word) that's now over 2000
pages long, and that really loads Word up. It's painfully slow with
find/replace, which I have to do multiple times. My system (8 GB ram,
RAID 0 7200 RPM drives for data) doesn't handle it well at all.
 
Charlie said:
Well I still need faster processors/memory/storage. I publish a
genealogy book (PDF) every year for my family organization (generated
by my genealogy program, but fixed up in Word) that's now over 2000
pages long, and that really loads Word up. It's painfully slow with
find/replace, which I have to do multiple times. My system (8 GB ram,
RAID 0 7200 RPM drives for data) doesn't handle it well at all.
Click to expand...

You can't make a processor big enough, to run Word well.

Word has *never* scaled well with size. If you're doing a
2000 page document, you wouldn't select Word out of the gate.
You'd use something like FrameMaker/FrameBuilder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker

The same can be said of Notepad or Wordpad, if you start
applying them to large documents (50MB+). I've had better luck with
competing tools.

Paul
 
You can't make a processor big enough, to run Word well.

Word has *never* scaled well with size. If you're doing a
2000 page document, you wouldn't select Word out of the gate.
You'd use something like FrameMaker/FrameBuilder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker

The same can be said of Notepad or Wordpad, if you start
applying them to large documents (50MB+). I've had better luck with
competing tools.

Paul
Click to expand...

But my genealogy program does 99 % of the work, and it finishes by
producing an RTF file with all the names and places marked for
indexing, and the only program I've found that handles the RTF file
correctly is Word. So I'm sort of stuck with Word. For just
manipulating large text files, I use EditPlus, which seems to handle
very large files well.
 
Charlie said:
But my genealogy program does 99 % of the work, and it finishes by
producing an RTF file with all the names and places marked for
indexing, and the only program I've found that handles the RTF file
correctly is Word. So I'm sort of stuck with Word. For just
manipulating large text files, I use EditPlus, which seems to handle
very large files well.
Click to expand...

It's true, that there isn't really anything that handles RTF well.
I almost suspect the entire format isn't documented, because
of the number of tools that simply cannot import it properly.

In Framemaker, we had a rtftomif import tool, for attempting
importation.

You can also experiment with importing the RTF, into OpenOffice
or LibreOffice. These are really the same software, just
development carried on by different groups of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openoffice

"Operating system Microsoft Windows..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libreoffice

"LibreOffice is available for a variety of computing platforms,
including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger or newer, and
Linux-based systems running Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or newer"

Either one of those, is a substitute for Office, and something
you can experiment with.

It would really depend, on whether the genealogy program
has gone out of its way, to generate obscure RTF code, as
to how well the importation would work. If the genealogy
program was written by Microsoft, then you wouldn't
expect a good result (because it's in their best
interest to make incompatible RTF output that only
the latest version of Word can open).

Paul
 
It's true, that there isn't really anything that handles RTF well.
I almost suspect the entire format isn't documented, because
of the number of tools that simply cannot import it properly.

In Framemaker, we had a rtftomif import tool, for attempting
importation.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I've never tried Framemaker.
You can also experiment with importing the RTF, into OpenOffice
or LibreOffice. These are really the same software, just
development carried on by different groups of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openoffice

"Operating system Microsoft Windows..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libreoffice

"LibreOffice is available for a variety of computing platforms,
including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger or newer, and
Linux-based systems running Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or newer"

Either one of those, is a substitute for Office, and something
you can experiment with.
Click to expand...

Neither one works properly with the RTF files. Remember, it's 2000 +
pages of genealogy information (mostly names and places) with all
names and places marked for indexing. Proper operation with index is
paramount, and even Word has some glitches that require a workaround.

As a long-time WordPerfect user, I had high hopes for using it, but it
won't handle the RTF file correctly either. In researching RTF files,
it seems that MS has actually many versions of RTF over the years,
making it very difficult (apparently) for any one else to keep up with
compatibility.
It would really depend, on whether the genealogy program
has gone out of its way, to generate obscure RTF code, as
to how well the importation would work. If the genealogy
program was written by Microsoft, then you wouldn't
expect a good result (because it's in their best
interest to make incompatible RTF output that only
the latest version of Word can open).

Paul
Click to expand...

No the genealogy program is RootsMagic.... AFAIK not at all connected
to Microsoft.

I've even tried fairly obscure word processors like Atlantis.
 
Well I still need faster processors/memory/storage. I publish a
genealogy book (PDF) every year for my family organization (generated
by my genealogy program, but fixed up in Word) that's now over 2000
pages long, and that really loads Word up. It's painfully slow with
find/replace, which I have to do multiple times. My system (8 GB ram,
RAID 0 7200 RPM drives for data) doesn't handle it well at all.
Click to expand...

Although there are programs for running text through virtual memory --
the document size is only limited by the amount of memory installed --
supported conventions may not key off TXT. Mine's billed as one such,
a program text editor.

When industry plays hardball with that chore, it's per se not a
document but approached from the point a database within templates and
indices. The entire Southeastern seaboard phone directory for
instance. Printable, of course, and each entry within milliseconds
retrievable. If first broken down furthermore sectionally into wieldy
chapters, as it were, indexed for key data retrievable operands,
automated for voice recognition, within a broader infrastructure of
templates applicable then to hardcopy production and distribution
methods. Word processing, spreadsheets and databases at some fine,
small point lose the in-house distinctions usually associated with
recognized SOHO marketing.
 
Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:46:03 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99
Click to expand...
> Well I still need faster processors/memory/storage. I publish a
> genealogy book (PDF) every year for my family organization (generated
> by my genealogy program, but fixed up in Word) that's now over 2000
> pages long, and that really loads Word up. It's painfully slow with
> find/replace, which I have to do multiple times. My system (8 GB ram,
> RAID 0 7200 RPM drives for data) doesn't handle it well at all.

You can't make a processor big enough, to run Word well.

Word has *never* scaled well with size. If you're doing a
2000 page document, you wouldn't select Word out of the gate.
You'd use something like FrameMaker/FrameBuilder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker

The same can be said of Notepad or Wordpad, if you start
applying them to large documents (50MB+). I've had better luck with
competing tools.

Paul
Click to expand...

I'm leery of trying Adobe products since editing in them is a pain in the behind, at least with Acrobat. I doubt Framemaker is as good as Word. So for now, at 300 pages, I will stick to Word. Also not clear if FM is being actively supported* (where there's smoke there's fire).

What do you like instead of Notepad? I do have a freeware product for XML that's good: XML Notepad 2007, superior to Word in producing .XML format docs.

RL

* Wikipedia: This reinvigorated rumors surfacing in 2001 that product development and support for FrameMaker were being wound down. Adobe denied theserumors in 2001,[2] later releasing Framemaker 8 at the end of July 2007, Framemaker 9 in 2009, and Framemaker 10 in 2011.
 
RayLopez99 said:
I'm leery of trying Adobe products since editing in them is a pain in the behind,
at least with Acrobat. I doubt Framemaker is as good as Word. So for now, at 300 pages,
I will stick to Word. Also not clear if FM is being actively supported* (where
there's smoke there's fire).
Click to expand...

At the time, my employer bought a 10,000 seat license for it, it's that good.

Before that, employees were buying copies at perhaps $500 each (with a purchase order),
and it was starting to add up. So they negotiated a price for enough seats, to make
a dent in the wasted financial resources. The price per, would be a secret.

The product did not start out as Adobe. It was made by another small company, and
Adobe bought the company. We were buying it, before it was Adobe branded. I even got
to phone the small company's tech support one day. In terms of software design practices,
I expect even to this day, it does things differently than Adobe staff would have liked.
(Virtually every decision point in the tool, has a 64 bit error code, which you can send to
Tech Support for bug resolution. Adobe wouldn't do that. And no, they don't give
a table of codes to the public :-) Of course, we asked.)

And it's *better* than Word, in the sense you can do large documents, without
taking a lot of coffee breaks while things load or whatever. The only time there's
an appreciable delay, is when making the final output of your book, generating
TOC or Index, resolving cross-references, it can take ten minutes on a slow
computer for a 500 page document. But in terms of editing chapters, as a
contributor to a book, everyone can work on their own chapter, with no delay
at all.

The tool stores information in a couple formats. The normal storage format
is binary. But there is also a Maker Interchange Format (MIF), which is
a text based format. And on occasion, we'd generate MIF programmatically,
to achieve a desired result. There was also the RTFTOMIF tool provided with
it, for *attempting* to import RTF. Any RTF constructs the tool would not
recognize, it would throw away, with the same kind of results you expect
from any of the other failed attempts at RTF importation.

It's also an *acquired* taste. If you're an MS junkie, you're going to hate
it. Except when the person next to you is using it, and getting work done,
while you're sitting there "looking at a busy cursor". That's the diff.

Paul
 
Problem is that PC's are already fast enough, ultimate performance
doesn't matter anymore. They are now looking at more convenient uses of
a PC, such as tablets, which requires lower-power PC's.

        Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...

They are not fast enough for me! I have 16 cores of Sandy Bridge
Xeons number crunching all night long.
My tasks are mostly limited by CPU not disks or graphic cards.
And Cuda/Tesla shit wouldn't help me that much because of overhead of
shovelling data between CPU and GPU.
If somebody offers me a 10x faster CPU, I will write them a cheque.
 
BW said:
They are not fast enough for me! I have 16 cores of Sandy Bridge
Xeons number crunching all night long.
My tasks are mostly limited by CPU not disks or graphic cards.
And Cuda/Tesla shit wouldn't help me that much because of overhead of
shovelling data between CPU and GPU.
If somebody offers me a 10x faster CPU, I will write them a cheque.
Click to expand...

You need the machine that Stephen Hawking just got. It's a blade
server with NUMA, and the entire box, runs with one OS on top.
So all the cores in the machine, would appear in Task Manager.
Being non-uniform memory access, that means if a core in blade 23
reads a memory location in blade 5, there might be a several microsecond
delay. But at least it gives the impression of being "seamless".
It's just, not all computing patterns, will be fast. With
such a machine, you could easily hit the "core limit" of 64 bit Windows 7.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24941

"SGI claims the UV2 has the world's biggest shared memory system
of any supercomputer. It's scalable up to 4,096 cores and
64 terabytes of memory."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/17/sgi_uv2_supers_xeon_e5_tesla_k10/

And the entry price of $30K, tells you it's not intended for individuals.

Paul
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithography

This will make tomorrows PC chips as fast as a Pentium II was to a x486 chip. At least 4 times to 8 times faster, if not an order of magnitude (10 times) faster.

Now that would put some excitement back into buying a PC! I would say another four years from now we'll see the first generation.
Click to expand...

Windows 10 will make it run like an x486.

As the adage goes, what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away. That's
the corollary to Moore's Law.

- Franc Zabkar
 
Back
Top