I'm not sure I agree with this fully. There are compromises made in software as a result of lacking resources, with these resources now available some of these compromises can be avoided. For example, lets keep more resources in memory at all times, lets use more resource hungry algorithms that just was not feasible before, etc.
PC obsolescence is obsolete
71–80 of 124 posts
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#72I think this pretty well reflects Microsoft's long-term consumer risk, too. More than half of MSFT's revenue ( http://www.tannerhelland.com/4273/microsoft-money-updated-20... ) comes from Windows and Office (and over half the profit, Windows http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-defer-revenue-windows-upgrad... ). Back in the 90s and early 00s, the rate of change in the PC market was amazing. The hardware you could buy in 1…
"I was quite surprised that Mountain Lion was a fee upgrade" My knowledge of American anti-competition laws is lacking, but I remember back when they were able to release iOS-upgrades for the iPhone, but not the iPod Touch for free. At the time, there was supposedly something on the legal side of things which they were afraid to run afoul with by releasing free iPod Touch updates. I suppose, if they were to release n…
You are mistaken. Free upgrades are not illegal. The Apple OS is not even a competitor of Windows because they dont run on the same hardware. MS got into trouble because they tried to use their dominant os position to force out competitors of their other products.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#73I think this pretty well reflects Microsoft's long-term consumer risk, too. More than half of MSFT's revenue ( http://www.tannerhelland.com/4273/microsoft-money-updated-20... ) comes from Windows and Office (and over half the profit, Windows http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-defer-revenue-windows-upgrad... ). Back in the 90s and early 00s, the rate of change in the PC market was amazing. The hardware you could buy in 1…
"I was quite surprised that Mountain Lion was a fee upgrade" My knowledge of American anti-competition laws is lacking, but I remember back when they were able to release iOS-upgrades for the iPhone, but not the iPod Touch for free. At the time, there was supposedly something on the legal side of things which they were afraid to run afoul with by releasing free iPod Touch updates. I suppose, if they were to release n…
It was due to the way Apple had been accounting for OS upgrades, not due to competitive/monopoly concerns.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#74I used to do a lot of server work. Mostly virtualization in a lab environment. We created an elaborate test rig which literally the more computers you threw at the problem the faster you could iterate. About 4 years ago I left, but looked back at hardware a few weeks ago. It blew my mind how things have doubled since then. I think servers for real work are still important, and they're not done at getting better faste…
The server market is almost as stagnant though. Multicore CPUs are important because of server virtualization, and it's always nice to be able to put 1/4TB of memory into a system, but there's a dearth of reasons to upgrade short of EOL or support being discontinued.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, we're simply just not seeing the growth in performance we used to, on the high end of the spectrum. This is valid for consoles too. It's not because of the consoles. On the mobile side however, the recent performance increases have been very dramatic, just like in the early days with the 386 and Pentium and stuff.
The problem of desktop performance gain isn't that the gains aren't there, it's that people aren't buying them even when they are. People aren't buying 6GB of RAM, let alone 8. They're not buying SSDs for their desktops, even though those represent real-world speed boosts right in line with years-ago trends. So with desktop demand tapering off, the performance jumps taper off. And with laptop demand still strong, per…
I see it more being about power profiles and Moores Law than anything else in respect to how Desktops are tapering and laptops are still going with tablet / phone going strong. The plateau is around a 2.5ghz dual core that supports the bangs and whistles when appropriate, be they branch prediction or atomic math or layered caches. The laptop space is now getting there, the tablet space is still 2 years out from that, and Desktops hit it 4 years ago. The reason is that the Desktop system could push out 125 watt cpus consistently without a hitch. Today, the real inroads in the Desktop space are not in core count (which nothing consumer grade saturates) frequency (which hit the ceiling on Silicon) or "cheats" (using transistors to accelerate instruction handling) they are coming out in significantly lower TDP demands. The modern i7 chip runs at 77 watts where the 920 in the article runs at 130 watts.
Meanwhile, laptops are maintaining their 20 - 40 watt profiles but are gaining performance. They are converging to that low power threshold. The tablet space is even lower, down to 5 watts in some cases, averaging from 3 to 10, but still, that is a convergence point.
It also doesn't hurt that AMD tripped over their own feet for a while and Intel is resting on its laurels pumping out higher performant CPUs without AMD to compete with at the high end.
Meanwhile, the graphics card business is heating up, the 7000 and 600 cards are upwards of 30 - 40% faster than the previous generation at much lower TDP, the Kepler architecture is extremely vector processing optimized to a fault in that it is worse as a gpgpu device than the 500 series, while the AMD Southern Islands chips are very generic cores optimized for GPGPU when their last few generations were graphics optmized, but in both regards they are markedly higher performant and consume much less power than many older gpus.
The advances are still there, they are just going in divergent directions. Nothing is stopping Intel from making a 32 core i7 with hyperthreading on a 500mm die besides the heat associated costs and tremendous production costs, but nothing on the market would utilize that. So they invest elsewhere.
The next generation of consoles isn't looking so bright either - they all seem to be targeting AMD gpus, and the WiiU will probably be using a modified 68X0 and the Sony / Microsoft camps will use the 78XX cards. They even are considering using FPUs. The gaming performance on the new hardware won't be that radical as the last time because the lower margins means they can't make extremely customized gaming hardware like back in the RSX days.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can't be emphasized enough- the only reason nothing has moved forward is because gaming hasn't paved the way. Most major hardware advancements on the desktop we've had have been a result of devices added for higher requirements in games. And right now, with the death of the B-tier game studio, there's no one pushing PC-only experiences that really has a reason to ignore the consoles. That's it. Now, whether the…
Console manufacturers would love to have a new one to sell Why? Don't they pretty much lose money by subsidizing them for a few years and only start breaking even after a long haul? I thought they made their money on game licensing.
Other than the Wii, that is often true. The business model is selling licenses to game developers for the games to be sold for that console. Maybe, just maybe, they'll make money on the hardware at the end of its cycle.
The licensing deal is also often why sometimes the PC version is five to ten dollars cheaper than the console version. You need no one's permission to publish to the PC market.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem of desktop performance gain isn't that the gains aren't there, it's that people aren't buying them even when they are. People aren't buying 6GB of RAM, let alone 8. They're not buying SSDs for their desktops, even though those represent real-world speed boosts right in line with years-ago trends. So with desktop demand tapering off, the performance jumps taper off. And with laptop demand still strong, per…
I see it more being about power profiles and Moores Law than anything else in respect to how Desktops are tapering and laptops are still going with tablet / phone going strong. The plateau is around a 2.5ghz dual core that supports the bangs and whistles when appropriate, be they branch prediction or atomic math or layered caches. The laptop space is now getting there, the tablet space is still 2 years out from that,…
I think we're in agreement here. There's plenty of advancement: it just isn't in desktop horsepower because that's not where the demand is. I never meant to imply there was no advancement on the desktop at all. I was just trying to get the gist of "advancement tracking demand" out there.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#78> Now, compare an early Core i7 system (Nehalem) against what’s shipping today (Ivy Bridge). Clock speeds are up a bit, and there are cheaper/lower-end options available, but the Core i7-920 that launched at 2.67GHz with four cores and eight threads is still absolutely capable of powering the latest games and applications. A big, big factor in the slowdown of obsolecense is that the current generation of consoles has…
This can't be emphasized enough- the only reason nothing has moved forward is because gaming hasn't paved the way. Most major hardware advancements on the desktop we've had have been a result of devices added for higher requirements in games. And right now, with the death of the B-tier game studio, there's no one pushing PC-only experiences that really has a reason to ignore the consoles. That's it. Now, whether the…
I have to disagree with the statement no on is pushing PC-only experiences. Epic is pushing UnrealEngine4 as potentially PC-only unless the console makers step up.
Then there's Arma 3 just around the corner.
From my point of view, as a PC gamer, the reason there's not so much investment in using the PC graphics capability we have cheaply available right now is because of the influence of the console market. Most big budget games right now are made for the current crop of consoles which PCs outpaced years ago. Too many times the PC version is just the 360 version with UI changes to support the mouse and keyboard. You can look at the graphics mods that are being made for games such as Skyrim and GTA4 to see the wasted potential.
Also, it's really, really expensive (as you point out) to make a game that truly pushes the capabilities we have right now and very few developers are willing to do that, it's a huge risk. Part of UnrealEngine4's development are attempts to address this by providing tools to help reduce the time necessary with the creation process.
But not all games need high graphic fidelity, that's not the whole story. The true waste is the pure amount of cheap computational power we have available with both the GPU and CPU that's being wasted. Screw photo-realism, I want more physics and AI.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computer market is not a conspiracy of manufacturers that get together and decide to screw customers. And absent a conspiracy, there's no profit in that. Actually, I'd argue that the computer world has been increasingly tending toward openness, not away from it; but consumer devices are special a use case where almost all of computer-buying humanity simply doesn't care about the things you care about. Anyway, I'd…
"The computer market is not a conspiracy of manufacturers that get together and decide to screw customers." I agree, but for the record, there have been a variety of customer-screwing conspiracies within the computer market. If memory serves correctly, price-fixing arrangements have occurred in at least RAM and LCDs. Not to mention various anti-trust issues.
If my memory serves there has been quite a few of them over the last couple of decades, people just tend to forget them over time.
Plus a few lawsuits were avoided or defeated because of the generosity of the US federal government making laws that makes it more difficult to be a consumer; the DMCA comes to mind. Laws pushed by the very companies that are not in a conspiracy but willing to work together for their own benefit when needed. You want a third-party ink cartridge? Screw you because the law says you can't and it's even illegal for you to try.
Nope, nothing to see here.
Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modular systems have costs, both in terms of money as well as size and weight. Right. It's absolutely necessary for Apple to make the new iPad so that you can't even take it to an Apple Store and get the storage upgraded, and to literally glue the Retina version of the MacBook Pro together so it's almost completely impossible to repair anything if it breaks. Some integration has a genuine benefit, such as minimising…
Neither of Apple's non-modular systems you mention are artificial. Upgradeable storage would require substantial additional room in a device that has no room. The Retina MBP's screen is glued together because it makes for a substantial thickness and weight savings. I'm not saying you can't complain about junk. I'm saying that it's really odd to complain about how it's some conspiracy of manufacturers when it's actual…
Neither of Apple's non-modular systems you mention are artificial.
Nonsense. Go look at the iFixit write-ups of taking apart recent Apple devices, which helpfully show exactly how similar/different the variations are in many respects, highlight all kinds of proprietary components literally down to the level of unusual screws that have no apparent benefit whatsoever over using a standard/compatible component, and incidentally debunk your claim about "substantial thickness and weight savings" in the process.
it's actually just people preferring the non-modular systems for many reasons
I'm still waiting for anyone to cite any of those reasons. Other things being equal, why would someone prefer to buy a system that was going to cost a vast amount more to repair in the event of screen damage, or where proprietary connectors meant they couldn't swap out the SSD for a higher capacity unit even though the device itself is actually removable? And as noted above, for the most part other things are in fact equal, or so close as makes no difference.
then giving an example where you yourself went for junk instead of something that's supposedly like what you want
I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what I should have bought instead. As I said, the printer I was talking about there was very much not an entry-level device, it was pitched as part of a range for professional use in an office, and with a price tag to match. Asking for such a printer to print a black-and-white document with only black toner is not some sort of absurd concession or flippant request. There would be no excuse for nerfing a $150 printer in that way, never mind a $1,500 one.
Also, it's not as if I somehow found the only printer or the only printer manufacturer around who has this problem. Again, as I already said, almost everyone seems to work this way these days. If you insist on maintaining that after extensive research I still wound up buying "junk" unnecessarily, you can easily win this debate. All you have to do is cite an alternative device I could have bought, with a reasonably similar spec and for a similar budget, that does not have such artificial limitations. But you can't, and instead of accepting that, you persist in implying that it's somehow my fault that a world class brand deliberately nerfed a device that costs $1,000+ in order to increase their revenue on consumables.