> ...there has been a virtuous cycle between software and hardware development. CPU hardware improves, which enables faster software to be written, which in turn...
This is the exact opposite of the experience I've had with (most) software. A new CPU with a higher clock speed makes existing software faster, but most new software written for the new CPU will burn all of the extra CPU cycles on more layers of abstraction or poorly written code until it runs at the same speed that old code ran on the old CPU. I'm impressed that hardware designers and compiler authors can do their jobs well enough to make this sort of bloated software (e.g. multiple gigabytes for a word processor or image editor) succeed in spite of itself.
There are of course CPU advancements that make a huge performance difference when used properly (e.g. SSE, multiple cores in consumer machines) and some applications will use them to great effect, but these seem to be few and far between.
This is the exact opposite of the experience I've had with (most) software. A new CPU with a higher clock speed makes existing software faster, but most new software written for the new CPU will burn all of the extra CPU cycles on more layers of abstraction or poorly written code until it runs at the same speed that old code ran on the old CPU. I'm impressed that hardware designers and compiler authors can do their jobs well enough to make this sort of bloated software (e.g. multiple gigabytes for a word processor or image editor) succeed in spite of itself.
There are of course CPU advancements that make a huge performance difference when used properly (e.g. SSE, multiple cores in consumer machines) and some applications will use them to great effect, but these seem to be few and far between.