![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Computing and airplanes design progress.
Jun. 5th, 2009 04:14 pmI very often encounter a statement that "Computing progress is driven by greedy hardware vendors and Microsoft, why I have to buy a 3Ghz computer and Vista to do the same job I've done on Pentium 100Mhz with Windows 95?" It has some grounds, and some may wish the guy to really open a youtube with Netscape Navigator 3.0 running on Windows 95 :)
To dispute this, people some times used plenty of comparisons of computing and software engineering in particular with other trades, both in terms of work process and end results. (Cars would be running at 10000mph, consume 1 gallon per 10000 miles, but break more often, etc) Now these arguments are considered trivial. I think I have found an interesting argument that I've not seen before used in flame wars on the subject.
There is a quite similar point I've seen few times: "Why there is no progress with civil airplanes in last 40 years? Boeing 747 was produced in 1969, and airlines are still buying it. Boeing 737 was out in 1967, and is also still being produced?
This 2 arguments have many things in common: Boeing 747-100 can get 150 ppl over 5000km, and Boeing 737-900 can do the same. Windows 95 runs MS Word on Pentium 100Mhz, and Windows 7 runs MS Word on Core 2 Quad 3Ghz.
And the solution for this paradox is very similar: there are in fact vast differences between 747-100 and 737-900, and Core 2 Quad and Pentium, but they are apparent only for aviation and computer experts. Passenger cannot notice difference in fuel consumption, ease of navigation, safety. Similarly, user cannot notice difference in process's memory partition, scheduler implementation, managed runtimes that make software development less costly and error prone, etc.
And I don't even mention bigger iron, where customers can utilize any more performance they can get. It's development in terms of both hardware and software is indirectly cross-subsidized by consumer products.
To dispute this, people some times used plenty of comparisons of computing and software engineering in particular with other trades, both in terms of work process and end results. (Cars would be running at 10000mph, consume 1 gallon per 10000 miles, but break more often, etc) Now these arguments are considered trivial. I think I have found an interesting argument that I've not seen before used in flame wars on the subject.
There is a quite similar point I've seen few times: "Why there is no progress with civil airplanes in last 40 years? Boeing 747 was produced in 1969, and airlines are still buying it. Boeing 737 was out in 1967, and is also still being produced?
This 2 arguments have many things in common: Boeing 747-100 can get 150 ppl over 5000km, and Boeing 737-900 can do the same. Windows 95 runs MS Word on Pentium 100Mhz, and Windows 7 runs MS Word on Core 2 Quad 3Ghz.
And the solution for this paradox is very similar: there are in fact vast differences between 747-100 and 737-900, and Core 2 Quad and Pentium, but they are apparent only for aviation and computer experts. Passenger cannot notice difference in fuel consumption, ease of navigation, safety. Similarly, user cannot notice difference in process's memory partition, scheduler implementation, managed runtimes that make software development less costly and error prone, etc.
And I don't even mention bigger iron, where customers can utilize any more performance they can get. It's development in terms of both hardware and software is indirectly cross-subsidized by consumer products.
