Monday, December 27, 2010

Moore's Law versus Murphy's Law

The following article is anyway (as you might judge at end of reading) is just "CTRLV"ed from somewhere.. ( though my (auto)biography is yet to come,I shall provide bibliography for the curious readers .. and for others, just carry on .. )


Dr. Gordon Moore was the founder of Intel, which is currently (as of today) the world’s largest chip making industry. He was not only a founder-chairman but also a great visionary. What he said did not only affect Intel but the chip technology as a whole, paving way for greater innovations for mankind to witness almost every two years.

Yes, he was the one who made this historical statement,

“The number of transistors incorporated in a chip will approximately double every 24 months.”

The consequence of this has been the following challenges to Intel:
1) Double the transistor density every two years.
2) Increase the functionality to capture the market demand(nobody buys things without new features).
3) Maintain or Improve Performance.

What was the deep impact which it left on the chip making companies?
How did it affect the lifestyle of the consumers?
How did it create a new paradigm in the direction of the chips that we see today?
Where does it stand today?
What is the future of Moore’s Law?
The above questions are intriguing the processor scientists in the chip industries and the silicon industries.

"If anything can go wrong, it will"

It was the year 1949 when Capt. Edward A. Murphy, an engineer working on Air Force Project MX981 which was designed to see how much sudden deceleration a person can stand in a crash. One day, after finding that a transducer (some part in the flying vehicle they used) was wired wrong, he cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it." The contractor's project manager kept a list of "laws" and added this one, which he called Murphy's Law.






We are not trying to find out what are the pros and cons of the two laws.
The objective of the above article is to give you an experience of reading
a sequence of words which was written with no objective. Does the preceding sentence sound murphical? Only if Moore could incorporate this article with more words every 24 months.


I calmed sir :  laws are meant to be refuted