The world spins across its axis to reach the same point at the exact same time it did the previous day. In the sphere of Technology too, there have been a few cases where the spirit of constant innovation has taken us in one direction, only to ultimately realize that the actual answer lay right where it began. Let's take a look at four technological wonders that have been through their entire life cycle to ultimately return to its original form.
iPod Nano
The iPod Nano was the rightful successor to the iPod Mini -- the main difference being the use of non-moving flash-based storage instead of a tiny 1.8-inch micro hard-drive. By the time the Nano had launched, the original chubby iconic MP3 player of the last decade -- the iPod Classic -- had almost reached its fifth generation, which brought in a 2.5-inch "high resolution" QVGA display, and for the first time could play videos too.
The iPod Nano started as a simple, thin and petite music player for somebody who didn't want to carry their entire music library. Although it had a color screen, Apple didn't add video playback to it simply because it wasn't meant for it. The second generation bettered the plastic casing with an aluminum shell and more variety of colors.
The third iteration was quite a popular model, with its horizontally adjusted screen instead of a long slender candy bar. But it was this version that stretched the iPod Nano's duties beyond just music playback, as Apple chose to add video playback to it.
The fourth generation switched that same display back to vertical, and added another bag of features like an accelerometer. The fifth generation really bit more than it should have chew, as Apple decided to increase the screen size a little, thereby increasing the overall footprint of what used to be a pint-sized player to a fairly handful one. If that wasn't enough, they even added a camera at the back that could shoot only video - even though it was more gimmicky in function if you looked at the quality.
Lastly, they also shoved in a microphone for voice recording, a pedometer, a speaker,even an FM Radio -- a first for any iPod ever produced.
By now the Nano was no longer that cute little music player that would just be used to play music. It simply tried to dabble in too many things at once, which eventually led Apple back to the drawing board. The back-to-the-roots thought process finally ended up in what we know today as the sixth generation iPod Nano -- a small sized MP3 player that everybody once loved. Some even called it a Shuffle with a screen.
Compromises were made in order to achieve this - the camera, microphone, speaker and support for video playback was taken off. Apple made good use of the experience they've had with touch-based input with their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices and employed the same type of input for the 6th gen Nano.
So, eventually the iPod Nano grew in size and features, but essentially went back to serve its original purpose -- play music. Full circle, we say.
Processors for mobile PCs
Back in the day, there was a vast difference between the processing capabilities of a CPU in a desktop vs. one in a laptop. Not to say that laptop processors have successfully bridged that gap today, but if you compare from what they were ten years ago, they sure have improved vastly if you taken into account its number crunching muscle.
I still use my dad's six-year-old Compaq laptop that has the Intel Pentium M processor, a single-core chip running at 1.6 GHz. Like their desktop counterparts, laptops too switched to multi-core architectures, as you can't just keep pushing clock speed on one core to push the envelope. In fact, this rule is especially essential for laptops, as they're anyway strapped for enough space to supply adequate cooling.
So, the Pentium M progressed on to the Core Duo, then to the Core 2 Duo. But in 2008, Intel completely took a U-turn of this incremental increase of processing power to a completely new concept -- the Intel Atom. It was a tiny little single core chip running at 1.6 GHz and drew as low as 2.5 Watts of power. This processor was a runaway success in inexpensive computers like Netbooks where, along with other power-sipping components, you could get battery life figures as high as 10 hours.
Intel even came up with intermediary processors under the "Ultra Low Voltage" (ULV) moniker. These were processors that weren't as puny in processing power as an Atom; yet not as powerful as a typical Core 2 Duo. Thus, if a Netbook did 7 hours on an average, and a regular Core 2 Duo-based laptop did 3 hours, these ULV processors deliver roughly 5 hours of battery life.
But what's happening now? Atom processors are getting faster with dual-core versions and higher clock speeds (the highest they have is 2.13 GHz!). This is probably to counter AMD's Fusion platform which draws the same amount of power as an Atom but delivers much better performance.
So, all in all, you also have these new breed of ultra-low-voltage processors that will eventually catch up to the same processing power of their forefathers. But the stark difference is that they will be able do it without sucking as much power.
Processors for mobile PCs
Back in the day, there was a vast difference between the processing capabilities of a CPU in a desktop vs. one in a laptop. Not to say that laptop processors have successfully bridged that gap today, but if you compare from what they were ten years ago, they sure have improved vastly if you taken into account its number crunching muscle.
I still use my dad's six-year-old Compaq laptop that has the Intel Pentium M processor, a single-core chip running at 1.6 GHz. Like their desktop counterparts, laptops too switched to multi-core architectures, as you can't just keep pushing clock speed on one core to push the envelope. In fact, this rule is especially essential for laptops, as they're anyway strapped for enough space to supply adequate cooling.
So, the Pentium M progressed on to the Core Duo, then to the Core 2 Duo. But in 2008, Intel completely took a U-turn of this incremental increase of processing power to a completely new concept -- the Intel Atom. It was a tiny little single core chip running at 1.6 GHz and drew as low as 2.5 Watts of power. This processor was a runaway success in inexpensive computers like Netbooks where, along with other power-sipping components, you could get battery life figures as high as 10 hours.
Intel even came up with intermediary processors under the "Ultra Low Voltage" (ULV) moniker. These were processors that weren't as puny in processing power as an Atom; yet not as powerful as a typical Core 2 Duo. Thus, if a Netbook did 7 hours on an average, and a regular Core 2 Duo-based laptop did 3 hours, these ULV processors deliver roughly 5 hours of battery life.
But what's happening now? Atom processors are getting faster with dual-core versions and higher clock speeds (the highest they have is 2.13 GHz!). This is probably to counter AMD's Fusion platform which draws the same amount of power as an Atom but delivers much better performance.
So, all in all, you also have these new breed of ultra-low-voltage processors that will eventually catch up to the same processing power of their forefathers. But the stark difference is that they will be able do it without sucking as much power.
Website design concepts
When websites started cropping up after the birth of the "Internet" back in the early 90's, they were simplistic in design. The minimalistic design was enforced upon by limitations of bandwidth available back then; web-pages needed to be as small in file-size as possible. Then websites began getting disciplined, structured so that the user would know what to expect where. Along with that grew Internet speeds, thus giving web designers the privilege of adding better graphics and heavier code.
Then came web design technologies like Macromedia Flash that let you create richer, highly animated pages. In the quest to make something eye candy, websites kept getting heavier and heavier. This also resulted in designs that were gaudy, unpleasing, and system resource taxing.
Then came Google in 1998 with a website that had one image, one search box and two buttons below as the main focus of the page. We're not saying that Google invented simplistic site design, but they sure reminded people that it is not the fancy graphics that mattered, it was the content.
Except for Orkut, if you look at most of Google's product websites, it's plain and simple in design. This is the main reason that made me switch from my Hotmail account to Gmail. And in the past few years we're seeing everybody trying to apply the "Keep it Simple" mantra to their websites.
So, have websites become lighter in weight? Of course not, with the current iteration of the web, there's so much code that is required to give you awesome functions like a chat client integrated into your e-mail (just the tip of the iceberg).
But what I'm saying is that websites have thrown away the carnival-styled appearance for something that's more soothing to the eye and the brain, and we couldn't be happier!
iPod Nano
The iPod Nano was the rightful successor to the iPod Mini -- the main difference being the use of non-moving flash-based storage instead of a tiny 1.8-inch micro hard-drive. By the time the Nano had launched, the original chubby iconic MP3 player of the last decade -- the iPod Classic -- had almost reached its fifth generation, which brought in a 2.5-inch "high resolution" QVGA display, and for the first time could play videos too.
The iPod Nano started as a simple, thin and petite music player for somebody who didn't want to carry their entire music library. Although it had a color screen, Apple didn't add video playback to it simply because it wasn't meant for it. The second generation bettered the plastic casing with an aluminum shell and more variety of colors.
The third iteration was quite a popular model, with its horizontally adjusted screen instead of a long slender candy bar. But it was this version that stretched the iPod Nano's duties beyond just music playback, as Apple chose to add video playback to it.
The fourth generation switched that same display back to vertical, and added another bag of features like an accelerometer. The fifth generation really bit more than it should have chew, as Apple decided to increase the screen size a little, thereby increasing the overall footprint of what used to be a pint-sized player to a fairly handful one. If that wasn't enough, they even added a camera at the back that could shoot only video - even though it was more gimmicky in function if you looked at the quality.
Lastly, they also shoved in a microphone for voice recording, a pedometer, a speaker,even an FM Radio -- a first for any iPod ever produced.
By now the Nano was no longer that cute little music player that would just be used to play music. It simply tried to dabble in too many things at once, which eventually led Apple back to the drawing board. The back-to-the-roots thought process finally ended up in what we know today as the sixth generation iPod Nano -- a small sized MP3 player that everybody once loved. Some even called it a Shuffle with a screen.
Compromises were made in order to achieve this - the camera, microphone, speaker and support for video playback was taken off. Apple made good use of the experience they've had with touch-based input with their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices and employed the same type of input for the 6th gen Nano.
So, eventually the iPod Nano grew in size and features, but essentially went back to serve its original purpose -- play music. Full circle, we say.
Processors for mobile PCs
Back in the day, there was a vast difference between the processing capabilities of a CPU in a desktop vs. one in a laptop. Not to say that laptop processors have successfully bridged that gap today, but if you compare from what they were ten years ago, they sure have improved vastly if you taken into account its number crunching muscle.
I still use my dad's six-year-old Compaq laptop that has the Intel Pentium M processor, a single-core chip running at 1.6 GHz. Like their desktop counterparts, laptops too switched to multi-core architectures, as you can't just keep pushing clock speed on one core to push the envelope. In fact, this rule is especially essential for laptops, as they're anyway strapped for enough space to supply adequate cooling.
So, the Pentium M progressed on to the Core Duo, then to the Core 2 Duo. But in 2008, Intel completely took a U-turn of this incremental increase of processing power to a completely new concept -- the Intel Atom. It was a tiny little single core chip running at 1.6 GHz and drew as low as 2.5 Watts of power. This processor was a runaway success in inexpensive computers like Netbooks where, along with other power-sipping components, you could get battery life figures as high as 10 hours.
Intel even came up with intermediary processors under the "Ultra Low Voltage" (ULV) moniker. These were processors that weren't as puny in processing power as an Atom; yet not as powerful as a typical Core 2 Duo. Thus, if a Netbook did 7 hours on an average, and a regular Core 2 Duo-based laptop did 3 hours, these ULV processors deliver roughly 5 hours of battery life.
But what's happening now? Atom processors are getting faster with dual-core versions and higher clock speeds (the highest they have is 2.13 GHz!). This is probably to counter AMD's Fusion platform which draws the same amount of power as an Atom but delivers much better performance.
So, all in all, you also have these new breed of ultra-low-voltage processors that will eventually catch up to the same processing power of their forefathers. But the stark difference is that they will be able do it without sucking as much power.
Processors for mobile PCs
Back in the day, there was a vast difference between the processing capabilities of a CPU in a desktop vs. one in a laptop. Not to say that laptop processors have successfully bridged that gap today, but if you compare from what they were ten years ago, they sure have improved vastly if you taken into account its number crunching muscle.
I still use my dad's six-year-old Compaq laptop that has the Intel Pentium M processor, a single-core chip running at 1.6 GHz. Like their desktop counterparts, laptops too switched to multi-core architectures, as you can't just keep pushing clock speed on one core to push the envelope. In fact, this rule is especially essential for laptops, as they're anyway strapped for enough space to supply adequate cooling.
So, the Pentium M progressed on to the Core Duo, then to the Core 2 Duo. But in 2008, Intel completely took a U-turn of this incremental increase of processing power to a completely new concept -- the Intel Atom. It was a tiny little single core chip running at 1.6 GHz and drew as low as 2.5 Watts of power. This processor was a runaway success in inexpensive computers like Netbooks where, along with other power-sipping components, you could get battery life figures as high as 10 hours.
Intel even came up with intermediary processors under the "Ultra Low Voltage" (ULV) moniker. These were processors that weren't as puny in processing power as an Atom; yet not as powerful as a typical Core 2 Duo. Thus, if a Netbook did 7 hours on an average, and a regular Core 2 Duo-based laptop did 3 hours, these ULV processors deliver roughly 5 hours of battery life.
But what's happening now? Atom processors are getting faster with dual-core versions and higher clock speeds (the highest they have is 2.13 GHz!). This is probably to counter AMD's Fusion platform which draws the same amount of power as an Atom but delivers much better performance.
So, all in all, you also have these new breed of ultra-low-voltage processors that will eventually catch up to the same processing power of their forefathers. But the stark difference is that they will be able do it without sucking as much power.
Website design concepts
When websites started cropping up after the birth of the "Internet" back in the early 90's, they were simplistic in design. The minimalistic design was enforced upon by limitations of bandwidth available back then; web-pages needed to be as small in file-size as possible. Then websites began getting disciplined, structured so that the user would know what to expect where. Along with that grew Internet speeds, thus giving web designers the privilege of adding better graphics and heavier code.
Then came web design technologies like Macromedia Flash that let you create richer, highly animated pages. In the quest to make something eye candy, websites kept getting heavier and heavier. This also resulted in designs that were gaudy, unpleasing, and system resource taxing.
Then came Google in 1998 with a website that had one image, one search box and two buttons below as the main focus of the page. We're not saying that Google invented simplistic site design, but they sure reminded people that it is not the fancy graphics that mattered, it was the content.
Except for Orkut, if you look at most of Google's product websites, it's plain and simple in design. This is the main reason that made me switch from my Hotmail account to Gmail. And in the past few years we're seeing everybody trying to apply the "Keep it Simple" mantra to their websites.
So, have websites become lighter in weight? Of course not, with the current iteration of the web, there's so much code that is required to give you awesome functions like a chat client integrated into your e-mail (just the tip of the iceberg).
But what I'm saying is that websites have thrown away the carnival-styled appearance for something that's more soothing to the eye and the brain, and we couldn't be happier!
0 comments:
Post a Comment