Senator Conroy (our dear, dear friend) invoked Moore’s Law with regards to the filtering systems currently available.  I haven’t actually heard what he said about it[1], although I’m quite able to comment on just the fact that he did mention it and luckily read the transcript.

Moore’s Law, as depicted by the Wikipedia page linked above “describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware” (emphasis added). In layman’s terms, it is often rendered as “computers get twice as good every two years”. It sounds simple enough, but if you read on, the entry continues:

Since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years.

So, we have a physical capacity that is increasing, relating to the hardware.  So, surely that can apply to the software running on it?  After all, the filter will be software that is run on hardware (which we’ve just established is getting better).

Let’s think about that.  We had Windows 1 in 1985, Windows 2 in 1987 (so far, it works), Windows 3 in 1990 (slightly behind schedule), Windows 4 (AKA Windows 95) in 1995 (slipping a bit here), Window 5 (AKA Windows 98) in 1998 (almost back on track), Windows 2000 (and its variations) and Windows XP (in 2001) which together should make 6 and 7, but are probably variations on Windows 5[2].  These two were nearly on schedule according to this mythical Software verstion of Moore’s Law.  Then we got Vista … in 2006.  Whoops, running a bit behind schedule.  The next version coming will be Windows 7 (see, I did mention there was something wrong with the versioning system of Windows) is currently in Beta which means it could be ready for 2009 (still behind MSML – Mythical Software Moore’s Law).

To turn the other cheek, so to speak, Macintosh System Software (Version 1) was released in 1984 (January to be precise), System 2 in 1985 (April, we’re doing pretty well here), System 3 came out in January 1986 (ahead of the ball game here), System 4 was released in 1987 (March – still meeting targets), System 5 was 1987 (no month available) and System 6 in 1988 (unverified on Wikipedia from which all the above are drawn).  I’m no expert on all of these systems, but I’ve played with a few.  The Wikipedia article suggests there were major updates in Systems 1, 4, 5 and 6 which gives us periods of 3 years, some months, then one year.  Following System 6, we had system 7[3] released in 1991, but there was no major update until Mac OS 8[4] in 1997, giving us 6 years, rather than the suggested two.  OS 9 was released in 1999 (back to the 2 years), then OS X in 2001 (and a version of that every year or two … Mac users are suckers for the shiney).

So, without even going near the run of the mill application software, we see intermittent development (some coinciding with major developments in the technology – probably related to Moore’s Law) with no pattern emerging.  There’s no Moore’s Law for software!  We cannot predict when improvements will happen, because as soon as something is done, the chips are all updated and it has to be tested again with new parameters and invariably, the code that runs it, no longer does in the way that was anticipated.  So, we can’t even predict when things will change, unlike the physical measurements that have been observed with hardware.

So what about wetware?  What’s that you say? What is wetware?  Well, that’s our brains.  I’m fairly sure there has been some significant improvements in the functioning and capabilities of the human brain, and I’m pretty sure that Moore’s Law does not apply.  Although, perhaps it simply applies to the propensity to develop new ideas[5].  Perhaps we will find that  Moore’s Law of the Human Psyche will allow our politicians (not mentioning any names, Senator Conroy) to develop a new idea every 2 years.  Which would be positive, because we’ve already lived through enough of this filtering crap.

Can we have our new idea early, Senator Conroy?

1. I find it too nauseating to watch for too long at once, although the female panelists seemed to be quite the critical thinkers [↩]
2. I don’t profess to be a Windows expert, but how many people are? [↩]
3. which was on the first Mac I ever bought [↩]
4. a system I somehow missed [↩]
5. at least in some individuals [↩]