Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by sam10685, Mar 3, 2006.
What do u think Macintosh computers will look like/do in 10-15 years?
they will still look expensive
for the price we'll pay...gah I hope so!
Big screens , amd processors, 10 years batttry life (Apples Estimate), Mac OS X 10.9, Mag noworries safe power adpter, 5gb - 25gb of DDR5 RAM, even birighter screens (like the sun!!), Touch Screen, Even thiner, UHD isight, petabyte hard drive, keys that have OLED's in them
UHD = Ultra High Definition
Simple - they will look like this.
After all, Apple already has patents on this technology.
Umm whatcha been smokin'
The Ram specs are out of this world on price .. even in 10-15 years
Petabyte drives will come of age when technology gets there and good production is available ..
That looks sweet ... no more key/mouse combo needed
8.67Ghz Quad Core AMD Athalon Proccesor (x4)
2.5Ghz Frontside Bus per Proccesor
8MB L2 Cache per Proccesor
4GB 1.66Ghz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2 - 9600)
1.5TB Serial ATA Hard Drive
64x Double Layer Superdrive
ATI Radeon X3600/2GB vram
the DVD is already starting to be replaced by Blu-ray/HD-DVD so in 10-15 years... wow.
All we can predict is evolutionary stuff. All the revolutionary things will be our surprise when we read it on MR (or Kevin Rose's blog ) the night before the keynote.
problem is some of that stuff is impossible to do.
Namely the processor speed and the DVD drive.
The max speed a Processor can ever really go is around 7-8ghz since you are getting to around the max speed of an eletron around then.
As for the DVD they would spin to fast for the DVD to structully handle and they would fly apart.
Besides if we are still using Dual layer in ten years that be bad.
I think in 10 years I dont think DVD will be in use any longer it be something else.
The hard drive would be big.
Question is will be still using binnary or would we of moved on to quotium code by then
It's funny that you say a proccesor can't get faster than 7-8Ghz because of the maximum speed of an electron. What on earth is that supposed to mean? What do proccesors run on? How do they work? Sorry i'm a little ignorant.
here this linky dink will ya understand how CPU works
what is an electron?
I'd laugh at you, but I didn't know what an electron was until a few days ago when I started reading A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking. Ask someone else to explain to you what an electron is because the way Steven Hawking writes, it's hard to really grasp anything.
seeing that makes me want a tablet but iklear would have to come by the gallon
please do laugh at me... i know exactly what an electron is. i'm just being an idiot because i'm bored.
Not true at all. IBM demonstrated silicon-based transistors operating at 350 GHz, and the University of Illinois has demonstrated transistors at over 600 GHz.
These transistors can't be used to build entire processors yet, but there's no theoretical reason that we couldn't have a 300GHz processor one day. It may never be practical, but it should be possible.
It has nothing to do with the "speed of an electron." You don't speed up the electrons; you just move the components closer together. That way, the electrons have less distance to travel, and get there faster. The limit is in how small you can make the components.
Atoms make up matter. Atoms are incredibly small. Each atom has a nucleus, made up of positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons. Negatively charged electrons orbit the neucleus. And basically, electrons facilitate electricity.
I'm a senior in high school, so hopefully after a few years I'll forget all that useless crap
What are you spoking too?
In 15 years quantum computers will be slated to be out in the market. *Everything* based on our 1s and 0s computers will look absolutely pathetic. We are talking about future computers that can crack any <1 billion zillion> bits encryption instantly, I should say so too.
Ram chips will probably be worth pennies on the dollar by then.
man, we (collectively) cannot even agree on educated guesses on Mac models later this year - so looking forward 10-15 years doesn't look promising in terms of reliability.
People tend to think linearly about these things - but over that span of time, advances will come about that we would never have expected -and thus cannot speculate about.
For the hell of it, however - I would imagine that Apple as we know it would no longer exist.
It is probable that our clothing, paint on our walls, carpet (etc) will all have "computers" embedded within them, allowing them to wash themselves, change color according to user mood/programability. The possibilities are so endless and somewhat unforseeable as new needs foster new utilities by these technologies. There will be a ****-load of personally-catered advertising.
In any case, in a world like this - hardware will be defined by it's invisibility, as most people will not need to utilize computer power beyond a certain threshold (then again, maybe not). It will probably come down to software and programming at this point. So Apple, if it exists, will be defined less by shiny boxes and more by UI and software innovation...
That is my completely off-the-cuff speculation.
Did you see the link in my above post?
Nevertheless, the larger point remains. We may have moved beyond even tactile interaction by then. Thought-screens and the like...
oh, dude-- don't worry. u will. i did. (maybe not the basic stuff like that, but i'm 20 and i have no idea how to solve equations in chemistry... i did for about 2 months though.)
the hertz speed of a processor has absolutely nothing to do with the "speed of an electron". hertz is a unit of frequency; i.e. how many electrons pass a point in a given time. this can be increased by speeding up the electron, if it is not already at the speed of light, or by increasing the number of electrons in a stream. for instance, gamma radiation has a higher amount of energy than x-rays. is this because the gamma radiation moves faster? no. it is because the gamma radiation's frequency is much much shorter; the gamma radiation contains much more energy.
gamma rays, for example, range in the exahertz range. one exahertz is 1000 terahertz, where one terahertz is 1000 gigahertz. theoretically, the only possible limitation on how high frequency could in reality go would be defined by the planck length, a concept that's really not worth getting into here. and in theory, the frequency could be infinite.
to sum it all up, it's possible that in 10 years we will have made massive advances in heat reduction and we will be running 10 THz (terahertz, 1000 gigahertz) processors. however, this is pretty friggin' unlikely, as well as pointless.
edit: oh yeah, i'm a highschool junior