Maybe it's high time for some regulation?

E.g. EU enforced mandatory USB-C charging from 2025, and pushes for ending production of combustion engine cars by 2035. Why not just make ECC RAM mandatory in new computers starting e.g. from 2030?

AMD is already one step away from being compliant. So, it's not an outlandish requirement. And regulating will also force Intel to cut their BS, or risk losing the market.

▲

funcDropShadow 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OMG no. Politician have no business making technological decisions. They make it harder to innovate, i.e. to invent the next generation of ECC with a different name.

	▲	m000 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I would argue that in the present conditions, regulation can actually foster and guide real innovation. With no regulations in place, companies would rather innovate in profit extraction rather improving technology. And if they have enough market capture, they may actually prefer to not innovate, if that would hurt profits.
	▲	cestith 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		ECC is like Ethernet. The name doesn’t have to change for the technology to update.
	▲	saagarjha 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Politicians don’t have to be dumb.

▲

free652 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cost. You are about to making computers 10-20% more expensive.

Computers also aren't used much these days, and phones and tables don't have ECC

	▲	m000 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ECC has only 10-15% more transistor count. So you're only making one component of the computer 15% more expensive. This should have been a non-brainer, at least before the recent DRAM price hikes. Also, while computers may not be used much for cosmic rays to be a risk factor, but they're still susceptible to rowhammer-style attacks, which ECC memory makes much harder. Finally, if you account for the current performance loss due to rowhammer counter-measures, the extra cost of ECC memory is partially offset.