• AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    And you would have been there shitting on magnetic core memory when it came out. But without that we wouldn’t have the more advanced successors we have now.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Doubt.

        Core memory loses information on read and DRAM is only good while power is applied. Your street dime will be readable practically forever and your abacus is stable until someone kicks it over.

        You’re not the arbiter of what technology is “good enough” to warrant spending money on.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Core memory is also designed to accomodate for that and almost instantly rewrite the data back to memory. That in itself might be a crude form of ‘error’ correction, but it still lasts way longer than an hour.

          Granted that quantum computers are a different beast of their own, how much digital data does a qbit actually store? And how does that stack up in price per bit comparison?

          If they already know quantum computers are more prone to memory errors, why not just use reliable conventional RAM to store the intermediate data and just let the quantum side of things just be the ‘CPU’, or QPU if you like?

          I dunno, it just makes absolutely no sense to me to utilitze any sort of memory technology that even with error correction still manages to lose information faster than a jumping spider’s memory?