Return-Path: Received: from spike.lmi.net ([66.117.140.17] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4893493 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:47:20 +0100 Received: from [10.0.1.52] (c-71-198-249-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.198.249.239]) by spike.lmi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D003F154141 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:50:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Subject: Re: [AE] OT: Apple contemplating switching from Intel CPUs From: Brendan Bolles In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:49:46 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0964D4D6-E864-4038-8386-4D9F19EAF779@fnordware.com> References: To: "After Effects Mail List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Right. In graphics production we have always found ways to use new CPU = and I/O resources as they become available. In 10 years you might be = able to to today's work in the cloud, but then the future desktop will = be much faster too and we'll find new things we want to do with that = speed. With word processing or spreadsheets you're basically doing the same = work now as you were 10, even 20 years ago, so the cloud has been able = to catch up. Not so with what we do. Brendan On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Stephen van Vuuren wrote: > I think physics and cost get left out of the equation. If it=92s = possible to build a computer in 5 years that fits in a tiny phone that=92s= as powerful as workstation today =96 it also means in 5 years a that = same CPU technology will power a desktop 5 times as powerful as that = phone for probably the same money or less.