Play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, far cry, flight simulation, play 3D bluray movies, run ANY 64 bit applications, do I need to go on? If you want a calculator then any machine will last forever, if you want to engage with the latest tech then NO it's no where near good enough
Today's computers should be good for 20 years
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
- Status
Play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, far cry, flight simulation, play 3D bluray movies, run ANY 64 bit applications, do I need to go on? If you want a calculator then any machine will last forever, if you want to engage with the latest tech then NO it's no where near good enough
Blast from the past, somebody writing this 10 years ago:
"Just picked one up, If you have them look up the computer on the in store terminals it will show as 2099.00 then apply the 100.00 circuit city rebate and the toshiba 100.00 rebate for a final price of 1899.00 plus tax. It is a really sweet deal the laptop comes with 15" sxga screen 1.7g p4m geforce 4go, harmon kardon speakers with builtin subwoofer, 40 gigs HD, 512 DDR Ram 16x12x24 cdr/dvd rom, external 1.44 floppy and much much more this is a really sweet deal, comparable area 51 alienware laptops run 2800+ dollars! "
"Just picked one up, If you have them look up the computer on the in store terminals it will show as 2099.00 then apply the 100.00 circuit city rebate and the toshiba 100.00 rebate for a final price of 1899.00 plus tax. It is a really sweet deal the laptop comes with 15" sxga screen 1.7g p4m geforce 4go, harmon kardon speakers with builtin subwoofer, 40 gigs HD, 512 DDR Ram 16x12x24 cdr/dvd rom, external 1.44 floppy and much much more this is a really sweet deal, comparable area 51 alienware laptops run 2800+ dollars! "
How many of all computer users play those games? What is the memory and clock demand for those games?
What say you, when is a quad core 8 GB machine going to be obsolete??
Were we statisfied with computing power 10 years ago? Not so much. Are we today? I know I am... Are you?
Last edited:
Diablo 3
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/diablo-iii-system-requirements
Starcraft 2
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/starcraft-ii-system-requirements
Can't find the system requirements for farcry 3
Basically you sound like either you can't Afford to upgrade and therefore are jumping up and down to hide your own annoyance or you only use a computer for its most basic functions and then judge the majority who are using it for a lot more
Even a "girls game" like the sims 3 takes more processing power than what you have
http://www.thesims3.com/game/systemreq
And all these are MINIUM requirements, ie your going to be skipping like a bitch if you try to play with these system settings.
As for 3D it requires a high end graphics card for starters
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/diablo-iii-system-requirements
Starcraft 2
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/starcraft-ii-system-requirements
Can't find the system requirements for farcry 3
Basically you sound like either you can't Afford to upgrade and therefore are jumping up and down to hide your own annoyance or you only use a computer for its most basic functions and then judge the majority who are using it for a lot more
Even a "girls game" like the sims 3 takes more processing power than what you have
http://www.thesims3.com/game/systemreq
And all these are MINIUM requirements, ie your going to be skipping like a bitch if you try to play with these system settings.
As for 3D it requires a high end graphics card for starters
As most people.
Although I sometimes use it as extra weight too...Didn't I say something about special needs and average needs in the OP?
But let's rephrase the topic: Are you generally statisfied with today's computing power? I am, maybe I am way older than you are, or less needy.
The internet is plenty fast, the HDs are big enough, movies look gorgeous, games play nice, video chat is life like. What else most people need more???
Let's repeat, what is it what you want more from the machines? So a hand comes out and jerks you off?
Actually no, games are slow, load times are appalling, videos might play well but try streaming them in full HD or 3D. You want a typewrighter that's fine for you, the MAJORITY need ALOT more power than that. And try playing diablo on anything less than a 2.5 dual core
A lot more development can be made -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQweemn2_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfv_hOFT1S4
And what is the average needs of a PC user?
If you're happy getting the bus compared to those who want to travel in luxury, then sure... you'll be good for the next 20 years.
4K TV is just around the corner - which will do for HD what HD did for SD.
10 years ago it would have taken days to re-encode a movie from one format to another - and now takes just hours or less.
Games played nice 10 years ago... they just play nicer now.
And the realism in 10 years time will be far superior.
Better graphics, more immersive gameplay, better AI, more environment-interaction... etc.
The more polygons you can put on screen without deteriorating the game play (slowing down fps) the better a game can look.
The more independent objects you can put on screen the better - noting that each object can interact with every other object... so each additional object becomes increasingly demanding of the computer's resources.
Those objects need to interact in a realistic way - which requires improved physics engines, which requires increasing processing speed.
AI, probably the biggest let-down in most games, also requires massive resources to get right, otherwise you get odd behaviour, and seemingly stupid behaviour.
Some games, such as Skyrim, boast vastly improved AI, graphics and immersion... but NPCs act the same, look the same, talk the same etc (some variation, but not significantly)... and there are still only a relatively small number in a fairly sizeable realm.
The ideal is a game that you can't easily tell that it is not "filmed on location", and with lifelike characters, responses, and realistic numbers of interactive characters. Not to mention the vast improvements required in environment-interaction... where you can go and pick a leaf... any leaf... off a tree, for example; where you can run your hand in a stream, pick up a stone and try to skim it across a lake. Not because you need to, but because you can.
Games will not reach these lofty heights, possibly ever but who knows.
But designers will strive for it, will push the boundaries of the hardware available to them.
But feel free to continue doing only the same as you're doing now.
The rest of us will enjoy the ride to whereever it may lead.
My recollection is that 1 GB was a lot of memory in 2004-ish and became standard by 2006-2007, so you're really talking about 7 years ago there. Is that really new? Back in one highschool I attended, the computers in the computer lab were still using Windows 3.1 machines until about the year 2000. My first regular PC was a Windows 3.1 machine with a 25 MHz 386 processor and 4 MB RAM, that my grandfather threw out, that I used in around 2001 or 2002. Isn't that roughly comparable? Would you want to be stuck with a Windows 3.1 machine now?
I'm sure you could get by on 8 GB in 2022. The problem isn't that you'll necessarily technically need a new computer in 2022. I could probably get a 20 year old PC or maybe even 30 year old workstation to do most of the work I needed to do. The problem is that it wouldn't be very comfortable when that hardware and the software that runs on it is unsupported, and everyone else has moved on.
If computers hadn't evolved at all since 1992, we'd use computers like we did back then without thinking about it. They got the job done then, didn't they? Why shouldn't they work for us now? 20 years before that, nobody had their own computer, and everyone got by just fine. The real reason you "need" a modern machine, unless you're living in a cave, is that everyone else has one and expects you to have one.
What improvement was really needed back in 1992? You could have been making all the same arguments back then as you are now. So what do you think is particularly special about now?
No, but today's average machine will soon become yesterday's machine, and program writers won't care much about making yesterday's machine obsolete.
Last edited:
yes, i see your point.
to that end i would say a 1ghz machine with 1 gb memory and a good video card would be sufficient for 99% of todays applications.
the size of your HDD would depend on how often you saved your programs.
a rough guess would be around 20 gb.
1. Typical gamers' whining.
2. Buy that 8 GB quad core already, it is dirt cheap...
As it was mentioned earlier, if Crysis was excellent in 2007 in that hardware, it is not the computers' fault today that today's games are not as pretty. The developers has had plenty of time and hardware to make games decent...
You tell me. Definitely not 8 GB quad, that is for sure.
Have you seen the games coming out this year? They look excellent to me.
Have you seen Crysis in 2007. Looked just fine to me...
Just one last word on games: The improvement on Xbox 360 shows that writing better software can improve just as much as getting better hardware...
And if you get that quad machine with 8 GB for $500, you are good to go for about 2 decades.
Nobody has answered my question yet: What year would you think that a machine like that becomes obsolete for the average user?
Last edited:
The whole point of the thread is that computers improved faster than average demand.
Nobody said they didn't or shouldn't. The point is that we reached such a computing power for relative cheap, that most average tasks can be done just fine, and I don't see how further improvement will make it nicer.
Does running Office on 8 GB really excite you?
Now you are just being silly. It took 10 minutes for a naked lady to appear, and we are talking about a photo....
Downloading is plenty fast, batteries last a full workday, on HDs you can back up the Library of Congress. Display is excellent. Memory sticks can hold shitload of information. Size is almost too small in certain devices, laptops are light as hell. As I said, I am pretty much statisfied with the state of technology.
Sure there will be improvement, but most people who buy a machine today, won't be inclined to upgrade or buy newer for a LONG, LONG time, pretty much until their machines physically dies...
That is the point of this thread...
Now there could still be a hand coming out and jerk me off, but that is still a few years away....
It's relative. They look better than older games in terms of graphics (although whether there's any improvement in playability is questionable for most)... and they will continue to improve with each generation of technology.
But as previously said, if you only ever want to play games that look this good, and no better, then you can stick at this level of tech. Your XBox 360 will last you another 20 years (hardware withstanding) if you have the games and a telly/projector... the same way that a Commodore 64 can still be used, and you can still play those games if that is all you want.
And it was also notorious for being unable to run on the vast majority of computers when it was released at anything above Medium GFx settings. It is in fact only in the last year or so that they typical gaming machine is able to run Crysis in all its glory, and even that is not in DX11 but DX10.
To an extent - but there are limits - otherwise we'd all still be using the original PS One or XBox.
Console game designers in particular need to continue to push the tech limits of the consoles precisely because the consoles are set in stone in terms of capabilities, and any advance in tech must wait to the next generation of console. So to make games seem better they need to be cleverer in what they get the console doing. At the moment the push seems to be toward interfaces, from the Wii-controller to motion sensors etc - rather than creating games that are actually any better.
But game designers on the PC generally strive to push the boundaries of whatever tech is available at the time, knowing that by the time the game is released the tech is probably already exceeded by newer.
It's why PC games have customisable GFx settings - ranging from Crysis' "You won't be able to run this level of detail for another 3 years" down to almost "It's a stick-man!"
This is not the same as with consoles.
There's a difference between being "good to go" and being obsolete. Noone is saying that such a machine will be completely useless in 20 years: if you want to still use an 8MHz x386 PC with 4Mb Ram and 40Mb HDD using Windows 3.1 then you can... it still has a use if all you intend is simple word-processing.
But the machine is obsolete.
As soon as a PC comes along that has better rewards for an acceptable additional outlay.
As to when that is will depend on the uses of the machine.
If you only have WP and browsing uses then it is more likely that the PC itself will become an obsolete bit of tech.
Well, some of you are saying exactly like that. And the difference between using the above mentioned machine today and today's computer being used in 20 years is huge.
I am more than sure, Office 2030 will run just fine on quad core...
So let me ask you guys this way: Gamer's whining aside, any of you guys have grievances with today's internet speed, battery power, laptop size, memory size, HDD size, clock speed, video display, etc???
Today I can download a 2 hours movie in 5 minutes, I can store just about a thousand of them on a single HDD, or a dozen on a USB stick, I can video conference in excellent quality around the world,etc. Those things can be improved only very little. Do you really want to store 2000 movies instead of 1000? You are in a really big hurry, so you want to download a movie in 3 seconds, instead of 5 minutes? Sure, it will happen, but again, the difference isn't that big....
Last edited:
- Status