04/20/2018 (Fri) 00:05:06
>>12654>While I'm at it, why can't we have open source CPU designs at all, like we do with 40xx and 74xx chips, where different manufacturers make functionally identical products?
I believe this is the goal of RISC-V, a silicon project which is just getting rolling this year.
Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia, Western Digital, have all invested in it, so it's possible that there'll be more competition for consumers in the area of CPUs; there's also Sifive and Lo-risc which I believe are companies more committed to actual open-sourcing.
Normal people however can't make their own CPU in their garage---it takes highly advanced equipment, controlled space, and enormous amounts of money.>>12653>We're hitting the limits of silicon, and quantum computers require massive amounts of energy to keep the conditions correct.>Photonics looks like the only way forward.
An argument I don't find too bad from quantum enthusiasts is that 60 years ago, electric computers took up entire rooms, and now they fit into the palms of hands.
Obviously there's limitations that restrict the potential mobility of quantum computers no matter what, but it's possible that a consumer could get a fridge-sized quantum computer in their own homes some decades from now.
But that is far off. If you want better personal computing now, I see nothing more promising than optical computers.>the ability to have multiple processors for different tasks in a standard level computer would be incredible. It will never happen, because most users don't care for solving NP-Hard problems, though.
It won't be available for "most consumers" in the first place. Windows is over and Macintosh will never get off silicon. These computers are going to run OS that won't be geared toward non-professionals; and so they won't be the target market initially.