Today's computers should be good for 20 years

Discussion in 'Computer Science & Culture' started by Syzygys, Jun 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    People actually play games on PCs??? I only do puzzle games.

    But anyway, sure, graphic is gonna get better, but we are talking about average users. If you want a really good game player machine, you still have to pay top money for it.

    Also, game makers can not jump too quickly to new generations, because they have to worry about backward compatibility. They can't expect everyone suddenly buy a new computer just because there is a new invention in gaming...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    How many % of all users are serious users? I also mentioned average people...

    The invention curve is hiperbolic (fast improvement in the beginning, slows down later on) and I think we are reaching the horizontal phase, until there is a fundamentally new invention, but then again, they have to deal with backward compatibility...

    What are the average PCs used for: communication, filesharing, watching pictures and movies, playing games. Today's machines are plenty for that...

    Maybe not the best analogy, but the XBox 360 is 7 years old, and instead of improving it like crazy, the games are better written, so a 7 years old machine just plays the new games fine...
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    And such consoles actually do hurt games. Crysis, when released in 2007, was so graphically well made that it remained a benchmark till 2011. However crysis 2 was toned down for consoles so much so that it, released in 2011, doesnt live up to the original game made 4 years ago, an eternity in game development. And a lot of my fellow teens have powerful pcs and high speed connections. Offices can use old Pcs though.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Do you know what % of computers users are expensive game machine owners? I would say less than 10%...

    Also, some of the games today are nearly perfect looking, so I don't see how can they improve them way,way more or what is the point of it?...And you are making the point for me, since if Crysis was so well made, that it was a good benchmark for 4 years, that means not much improvement needed or happened in the hardware department, if a 4 years old game still kicked the new games' asses....
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2012
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I have XP on a PC that I use ALL the time. That bastard is soo soo soooo slow it drives me insane! Anyhow, I've got a new one coming soon, not top notch, but at least it will be faster than that crap-ola!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I've always heard that the gamers are the primary drivers behind the advancing power of the personal computer. A serious gamer with money to burn is going to have the most power he can get in both computer and Internet band width. But I won't be satisfied until I can wear my personal AI system on my wrist like a watch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Honestly, computers have been so cheap in the last 3 years, that unless you are statisfied with the performance, there is really no reason not to buy a new low priced laptop...

    Unless, of course, if you are poor, in that case, my condolences...
     
  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I tried to find the market share of gaming computers and ran into this article. This is not what I wanted, nevertheless, ontopic:

    http://techreport.com/discussions.x/18665

    "hardware requirements for PC games are stagnating. Users can therefore get away with more modest components that still run cross-platform games smoothly. "

    Also, it seems that although the absolute numbers are still going up, market share is shrinking, although this is inside the gaming group:

    " top-of-the-line gaming hardware revenue will continue to grow over the next few years, although it will make up a smaller portion of the overall gaming PC market"
     
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    OK, the worldwide number of computers are around 1.5 billion:

    http://www.worldometers.info/computers/

    Now according to this graph, the enthusiast desktop/laptop number is just under 300 million:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So roughly counting 1 out of 5 PC is a gaming enthusiast computer. Now the graph also shows that PCs are overtaking consoles, and the reason could be that for less dollar they get more bang (computing power).

    This just shows that computers have reached such a level, where they are beating consoles both in price and performance. Again, my original assumption stands, once you have a machine that is hard to improve, that machine might stay around for a while...
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I don't think that graph is accurate? XBox and PS3 are pretty much the same in terms of sales (the USA of course loves 360 and Europe and Japan love PS3).But the numbers look too high for both! I seem to recall PSP sold 75 million TOTAL sales and that was more than PS3 and XBox360. And PSP was a dud (although I got one off a friend for free and it was GREAT for in flight entertainment... God of War was a lot of fun and movies are easy to make for PSP).
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    That graph is a dud, firstly the gap between wii and the hi def systems shouldn't be parallel as the Xbox, wii and ps3 flutiated as to the top seller, I believe last year it was PS3 (I have all 3 plus old, plus hand helds plus pc btw). PC gaming is HUGE though personally I prefer consols, just look at the sales for Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2, everyone of those sales is a PC gamer because they aren't ON consol. Further more you have all the MMORPGs, again these are all PC or Mac because they aren't on consols (hope the elder scrolls MMO is on consol because that will be cool) and some of these PC gamers spend MEGA bucks on there "rigs". My father in law spent more on ONE of his 2 graphics cards than I did on BOTH the PS3 AND the 360. His computer is worth more than 10,000 and he updates graphics cards as regularly as I buy GAMES (his OLD card he is giving me was only relseased 6 months ago)
     
  15. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Forget about the top of the graph because:

    1. We talk about PC sales, not consoles.
    2. We don't talk about games sales, but hardware sales.

    People, try to focus...
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,478
    Poor argument.
    The PC / Console relationship has always been cyclical with regard power, performance and price.
    The gen-1 console comes out as a games-only machine that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'd games PC.
    The PC tech improves and prices drop until you can get a PC cheaper than the gen-1 console.
    The gen-2 console comes out that undercuts a similarly spec'd games-PC.
    Cycle, rinse and repeat as necessary.

    At the moment the PC gaming environment is so far in excess of the X-Box and PS3 in terms of graphical ability that those arenas are developing other ways to draw in punters, such as the motion sensors etc.
    But the next gen of consoles will put them once again ahead in the cost/benefit debate for many people.

    Plus until they introduce a decent mouse / keyboard interface for the consoles... well... that's another issue.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    PCs are always up against it in terms of graphics requirements for games: with the GFx tech improving all the time, PC games increasingly push the boundaries. It is a constantly moving beast.
    Consoles, on the other hand, are stakes nailed firmly in the ground. ANY game designed to run on the PS3 will run on every PS3.
    But a game designed to run on PCs may not run on PCs that are only 6 months old... forcing updates / upgrades.


    In the desktop PC market the games market is determining the power and specs of PCs.
    The increasing requirements for games raises the power available for developers of other software, such that they no longer need to be as clever in their design, or efficient. They can become far lazier in their programming, because machines are now so fast to compensate.

    When machines were all 8-bit, running on 64k of RAM, games and applications pushed the boundaries by being efficient and superbly written.
    Now the programming is fat, because there is so much more resource available.



    Anyhoo - the way I see it is that todays PCs should of course be able to last 20 years if all you intend to do is the same thing you are doing today.
    Cars last 20 years or more for the same reason.
    But they wouldn't do if the specs of the fuels available constantly got updated: e.g. old cars requiring the old leaded petrol can no longer operate for the majority of us (leaded petrol no longer really being available), even though they do the same things that existing cars do.

    Also with increasing speeds, power, RAM etc come new ways of doing things. And this is what forces change - as people move to these new ways, and no longer support the old ways.

    I am not sure we can imagine what our PCs might be capable of and be used for in 10 years, let alone 20 years, to be able to say that current tech will remain useful... unless we only want to do the same things in the same ways.
     
  17. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    You kind of talk too much...

    [irrelevant stuff disregarded]

    OK, so we agree....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now if we don't even see/imagine today the applications, that could make our PCs obsolete, I guess dreamers better to be dreaming fast, if they want to prove me wrong...
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the same thing was said of the monstrosities of the fifties.
    1 gig, and i was excited about 64k.
    i've tried to fill up my 5 and a quarter but failed miserably.
     
  19. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    You tell me what a 1G XP machine can't do today, even if badly... Also, you tell me the next big application... Where is it, what is it???

    A few minutes ago, I was thinking, I had a desktop back in 1996. I am doing pretty much the same things as I did 16 years ago, just better and faster. Those machines were crap. Today's machines are very good. 20 years should be just fine with them...

    For only $500, at Walmart you can buy an 8 GB quad core machine with Windows 8 upgrade. W8 should be supported for 12 years at least. None of our computers have more than 3 GB and we are still doing very fine.

    So what was that application again for the average user that needs 8 GB???
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it can do everything today, tomorrow is the question.
    i wouldn't know.
    i'm not gonna write it.
    that's the size of a double sided DVD.
    i can't think of a single application that would require 8 gig.
     
  21. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,171
    Substitute "8 GB" for what seemed like a lot of memory 5 years ago (2 GB) or 10 (256 MB) or 20 (4 MB?). When did anyone think any differently than you do now? The reality is that we didn't have a list of checklist features that we wanted computers to do and we're now "finally there". As computers got more powerful software and operating system designers just found more ways to use (waste?) that power until it became the norm. What makes you think that should stop now of all times?

    That said, one possibility I've heard is that we're seeing the 'standard' computing device evolve from the microcomputer to the tablet and smartphone, just like it evolved from the minicomputer before that, and the mainframe before that. You'll look a bit odd with your 2012 desktop if everyone's using computerised contact lenses by 2032.
     
  22. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    OK, so let's do the 10 years. The Notebook I am writting on has originally 1 GB, so it is about 4 times the 10 years ago considered lots of memory. If that 1 GB still does the job, that means, the 8 GB that is considered lots of memory today, will just do fine in 2022 but I assume even later.
    So you are proving my point. Again, the improvement and needs curve entered the almost horizontal phase of the hyperbole, and less and less improvement happening and needed...

    Also, program writers don't dare to come up suddenly with something so new that it would require huge amount of memory making the today's average machine obsolete.

    The machines are getting smaller but not necessary more memory or much more computing power...
     
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    You aren't getting it. The point is that it has been getting the job done for what? like 10 years already??? That just shows how long a high end computer lasted....
    And a 1 GB machine wasn't even cheap back then. Today you can buy a 4 GB dual core machine for around $300...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page