The other thing about iPhones that allows them to appear small when
actually they aren't is that they're useless without the infrastructure,
all of the cell towers, WiFi hotspots, routers, server farms on which all
that data is stored that is moved into and out of the apps. iPhones are a
lot "bigger" if you factor in their proportional share of all of the
infrastructure that allows them to do anything at all. And since Traveller
starships can't count on a mature wireless network infrastructure in every
system they jump into, they have to carry it all with them.
> Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
> should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
> radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
> obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
>
> Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
> is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage, redundancy,
> even more so.
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 05:42 'ret7army .'
> [Traveller_TNE]
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
>> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
>> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
>> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe.
>> I
>> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the
>> time
>> the LBB came out.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this
>>> isn't
>>> awful."
>>>
>>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
>>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>>> >>
>>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
>>> size
>>> >> was
>>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
>>> UPS,
>>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>>> >> computers.
>>> >>
>>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a
>>> 10
>>> > or
>>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>>> percentage
>>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>>> space
>>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
>>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers
>>> in
>>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
>>> components
>>> > the
>>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
>>> up.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Evyn
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
actually they aren't is that they're useless without the infrastructure,
all of the cell towers, WiFi hotspots, routers, server farms on which all
that data is stored that is moved into and out of the apps. iPhones are a
lot "bigger" if you factor in their proportional share of all of the
infrastructure that allows them to do anything at all. And since Traveller
starships can't count on a mature wireless network infrastructure in every
system they jump into, they have to carry it all with them.
> Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
> should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
> radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
> obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
>
> Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
> is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage, redundancy,
> even more so.
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 05:42 'ret7army .'
> [Traveller_TNE]
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
>> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
>> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
>> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe.
>> I
>> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the
>> time
>> the LBB came out.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this
>>> isn't
>>> awful."
>>>
>>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
>>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>>> >>
>>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
>>> size
>>> >> was
>>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
>>> UPS,
>>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>>> >> computers.
>>> >>
>>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a
>>> 10
>>> > or
>>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>>> percentage
>>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>>> space
>>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
>>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers
>>> in
>>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
>>> components
>>> > the
>>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
>>> up.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Evyn
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>