[HN Gopher] The computer built to last 50 years
___________________________________________________________________
The computer built to last 50 years
Author : andai
Score : 24 points
Date : 2024-10-07 11:54 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ploum.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (ploum.net)
| t-3 wrote:
| Haven't we basically already built them? They're just slow and
| not supported by software vendors so nobody wants to use them.
| Other than replacing capacitors and realtime clock batteries on
| every 20 years or so, dusting and replacing fans when bearings go
| bad (assuming it's not a passively-cooled design), most computers
| should basically last beyond a human lifetime (I've read that
| those less than ~20nm will go bad over time as traces lose atoms
| and eventually fail, but older processes should be fine).
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Haven't we basically already built them?
|
| Yes, we have. I have a few computers that old or older, and
| they run just fine. Every so often a dried-up capacitor has to
| be replaced, but that's about it.
| andai wrote:
| Are you talking about C64?
| supportengineer wrote:
| One of them is in interstellar space
| basementcat wrote:
| Two.
|
| https://science.nasa.gov/mission/voyager/mission-overview/
| gladiatr72 wrote:
| https://hackaday.com/2019/12/06/visiting-the-facom-128b-1958...
|
| I was quite impressed to learn about the 66 year-old computer
| that is still in use with the Japanese transit system.
| flobosg wrote:
| (2021)
| adrian_b wrote:
| Most modern MOS circuits are no longer designed to last 50 years,
| unlike most integrated circuits and discrete semiconductor
| devices of 50 years ago. There is no chance for any up-to-date
| CPU or memory module to work for 50 years.
|
| Nevertheless, it is quite easy to be able to use a modern
| computer for 50 years, if you just get 10 computers that do not
| contain components that age even when they are not used, e.g.
| batteries or electrolytic capacitors, and you use one computer
| until it breaks, keeping the others in storage until you must
| replace the current work computer.
|
| Such a set of modern computers would be faster, cheaper and
| smaller than a single computer in the style of PDP-11 or VAX,
| made by using low-density components that can work for 50 years.
| Clamchop wrote:
| > Lots of writers keep using [typewriters], they became trendy in
| the 2010s and, to escape surveillance, some secret services
| started to use them back. It's a very niche but existing market.
|
| At first blush, this sentiment appears to also be true of old
| computers. There is growing "trendy" interest in them, and
| they're otherwise still fit for purpose for some tasks, like
| gaming, writing, driving long-unsupported hardware or software.
| The community around it has been rather industrious in servicing
| old machines, particularly Macs.
|
| But they cannot satisfy all the requirements we have of a modern
| computer, and neither can a typewriter. However, the length of
| time a computer has before being truly obsolete seems much longer
| now than it used to be. You could easily get a decade or more if
| you can control the itch for new and shiny and have modest
| performance needs.
|
| Might need to replace the battery, if the device has one. There's
| some luck involved with getting the longest support window
| possible from MS or Apple. Google and co are famously a lot worse
| on this front, if we're talking phones.
| themadturk wrote:
| I couldn't help thinking of the AlphaSmart[0] while reading this.
| The writer's primary need seems to be an offline, lasts-forever
| writing device, so no version of the AlphaSmart meets all the
| criteria. But it is (or was) an offline-only device that was
| limited to writing and a few educational applications. The
| keyboard was excellent, text could be transferred between device
| and computer via cable, and the AA-batteries would last for
| literally hundreds of hours.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaSmart
| theodric wrote:
| E-ink maybe isn't it, anyway. A few years ago I built an e-ink
| clock/gimmick that refreshed every few seconds with some
| different text on a given part of the screen, and within 1.5
| years the sides unto about 2cm in - but not the parts being
| constantly refreshed! - had more stuck/weak pixels than not. A
| halo of rot. 50 years is a long time, much longer than 1.5.
| jmrm wrote:
| I think we have reached a point in tech where there isn't a huge
| benefit about changing computer every 3 years like in the past.
|
| You can have a computer with 10 years that can run modern OSs and
| software without being incompatible or too slow, a thing totally
| impossible 20 years ago.
|
| If you do AI related developement or play videogames, you would
| require at least a new GPU, but outside that, I think the only
| couple things (pretty major IMO) making those computers less
| useful are more complex video formats not available to decode by
| hardware, and the vast amount of code some web apps use (try
| using YouTube or Twitter in an old laptop)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-07 23:02 UTC)