Thoughts on 2009

So, I shared an interesting read in this post and said I'd give some of my thoughts on it. So I guess this is that post.
Intel's new processor, i7, has 8 cores, I just think the 7 is misleading. But 8 cores is a little overwhelming, like, I'm running two and two years ago that was top line stuff. Now it's tri (they use leftover quad cores that have one core turned off. So it's a clever way to recycle that I like. It's kinda cheating, but better than throwing them away since silicone price is apparently rising.) and quad cores, and next year it's oct? I like the number 8, so there's nothing wrong with it, but that's just so many. The computing power in the past few years has grown so much so fast. I know this follows Moore's law and predictions, but think a few years in the future. I feel like there is a limit to how much processing power the average user needs, and I feel that we are already past that. My Mom doesn't care how fast her computer is (except when she doesn't want to feel technologically left behind) and all she runs is Internet and word apps. Can there really be so much going on that she will need 3GHz of power? I don't think there will be. Even with web 3.0 apps and more data on the Internet. The business users will never really have applications that demand that much power.
But on the flip side, as the power gets larger, the interesting thing is that the chips are getting smaller because of advances in other areas like nanotechnology. This means that the chips use less materials and therefor (I use therefor a lot, sorry) cost less to manufacture, decreasing prices. So, even though a chip might be 10x as fast as a chip ten years ago, it costs less. So even though most user's will never need the power, it will be cheaper and so why not get it?
There are also a lot of other emerging markets that can use the technology and advances in processor power and size. With handheld devices becoming more advance, they will eventually match the power of today's laptops and eventually the high end desktops. Although there are physical limits to size which stop music players from having terabytes of memory, at least with current tech, there will always be ways to improve them.
There is also the idea of 'the cloud', which is an older concept that might be making it's way back, especially with help from powers like google and microsoft. The idea is that you don't have your data in your possession as a hard copy. My computer has my english paper, it is nowhere else in the world. The cloud changes this to the physical copy being in a server somewhere in a farm of information. A good example is google apps. I create a spreadsheet on google docs and they store it, for my access anywhere from any computer with Internet. All I need is my account to get it. If my computer is lost, my data isn't. My dad was explaining how airlines use this practice because flight information has to be centralized. The computers at check in don't store all the flight info on their hard drives, they are only a terminal for accessing the data from the central servers. If it didn't work this way, there would be so much conflicting data that it would ruin the system completely.
Taking this idea to the general populous hasn't been really feasible because of bandwidth and accessibility limits. Not everyone has the airlines direct connection with the data center through the largest bandwidth pipes. But with widespread wireless connectivity, it is becoming an option, and one that google is opening up, subtly. Now that wireless speeds are growing and some cities are almost completely connected, why not implement this concept? For a price you can be completely wireless at the top speeds. You don't have to worry about losing what you're working on, practically all the time. Even when I write this, blogger saves a current draft every time I stop typing for a couple seconds. It's really useful.
An implementation of this that I don't fully agree with is one that I can't say I know the most about, so sorry if I have it all wrong. My friend Danny has a sidekick with T-Mobile and he has to connect to t-mobile's server to get his address book. From what I gathered, his contacts are stored online where he can access them from any computer, and are downloaded to his phone when he starts it up. This is smart, because he can add numbers online and probably link it all to a address book application on his computer. But the idea that they aren't stored locally seems faulty. What if you have no signal and need a number? What I would expect is that it would only sync with the central information every time, adding or removing information that has been added or removed. Like syncing your iPod, it checks for differences and modifies your device. If this is how it works, than it makes a lot more sense and is a really clever idea.
As these ideas and technologies improve, they will eventually reach a limit. In the beginning, people only used personal computers for work and were basically a terminal for accessing centralized data. Then they got powerful enough to be portable and hold a user's data and process everything without the help of a server. But as that reaches a limit, portability will make a comeback and we will move back into the cloud.

That was a lot of writing, so I am going to end it here (at least for now) and go back to reading my book for school. But the overall idea is that as these technologies improve they will reach a limit of practical use and then there will be another area to improve on. And, watch out for the cloud.