Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

idiallo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 401 posts

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#241

Post by bluedino »

rayhano wrote: post #142

This is an over-simplication. Yes, PCs aren't ageing as fast as they used to. But they are obsolete beyond 'not being portable'. Here is why tablets are winning: 1. Instant on. I can keep my thoughts in tact and act on them immediately. No booting, no memory lags, no millions of tabs open in a browser. 2. Focus. Desktop interfaces seem to be desperate to put everything onto one screen. I have a PC and a Mac (both lap…

Don't forget your iPad isn't going to be covered in popups or left disabled by ransomware like PC SPYWARE DOCTOR 2014 like your old Windows PC.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#242

Post by ben010783 »

wisty wrote: post #38
gtaylor wrote: post #8

I built a dev/gaming machine back in early 2010. It's stout, but not a ridiculously expensive (~$1,000) behemoth. The only thing I've done since then is toss some more RAM in so I could have two sets of triple channel DDR3 instead of one. I can still run just about any modern AAA game at the highest settings. The only time I felt like I've needed an upgrade is while playing Planetside 2, which is/was very CPU bound f…

> I can still run just about any modern AAA game at the highest settings. AAA games mostly target the console. Look at GTA5, which isn't even out on the PC. Most AAA games will run on a PS3, which came out in 2006, and has 512MB of RAM (combined system / graphics). That said, there's a point of diminishing returns - making games look much more realistic will take obscene amounts of resources.

GTA4 was actually a sore spot for PC gamers. The game was not optimized, so it ran like crap if you didn't have a higher-end set-up.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#243

Post by 3pt14159 »

zalzane wrote: post #216
simonsarris wrote: post #96

I've felt this way since I built my last desktop in 2008. I was sort-of waiting for the "gee its time to upgrade" mark to roll around in 3 or 4 years, but it hasn't happened yet. Any games I want to play it still runs very well, and it still feels very fast to me even compared to modern off-the-shelf systems. When my friends ask for laptop-buying advice I tell them if they like the keyboard and screen, then its just…

>because people do not need $2000 Facebook and email machines Devil's advocate: if that is true, then why are macbook pros such a hot sell? I'm typing this here in a college library's lobby. When I look around, I see roughly 3/4 of the laptop-using students are using a macbook pro, with a few macbook airs littered around. If I were to walk around and glance at what people were working on, it'd probably be something l…

Because MacBook Pros have HDMI output, more pixels, larger hard-drives, and run Starcraft.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#244

Post by mpg33 »

Average computing power and storage has gotten to a point that it now can handle the everyday stuff with relative ease. High-def video/gaming are the main areas where hardware still has to keep up with.

Although one could argue that network bandwidth is still an area affects the "everyday stuff".

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#245

Post by carterschonwald »

x0x0 wrote: post #212
carterschonwald wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphatic agreement. I wind up helping folks a lot with writing high performance software, and it's very easy to get to the point where the time to run a model is totally determined by how fast the CPU and IO are. I'm talking problems where naively written C would take an hour, but if I'm careful and use some blend of very clever c or Haskell, the computation is done in 2-5 minutes

in machine learning, as soon as you stop using linear models which are normally quite fast to compute, models will be as slow as you can tolerate. for example: random forest, gradient boosting, gam, etc -- you will typically do parameter searches and the models you get are as good as your willingness to wait. Good software will run at a significant fraction of memory bus speed and the faster that bus goes the better…

exactly! This winds up being a memory locality / layout problem often times!

eg: most CPU memory traffic is in "cachelines" size chunks so you're best off trying to organize information so you can use all bandwidth! I've a few ideas on this i'm trying to bake into an array/matrix library i hope to release soon. :)

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#246

Post by mcgwiz »

Hmm, there seems to be the implication that we've hit some magical end state in hardware development where consumer needs are forever met.

Personally, I think of these hardware market developments with an eye toward interplay with the software market. Historically, software developers had to consider the capabilities of consumer hardware in determining feature scope and user experience. Hardware capabilities served as a restraint on the product, and ignoring them could effectively reduce market size. The effect was two-sided though, with new more demanding software driving consumers to upgrade. Currently, in this model, the hardware stagnation can be interpreted as mutually-reinforcing conditions of software developers not developing to the limit of current hardware to deliver marketable products, and consumers not feeling the need to upgrade. In a sense, the hardware demands of software have stagnated as well.

From this, I wonder if the stagnation is due to a divergence in the difficulty in developing software that can utilize modern computing power in a way that is useful/marketable from that of advancing hardware. Such a divergence can be attributed to a glut of novice programmers that lack experience in large development efforts and the increasing scarcity and exponential demand for experienced developers. Alternatively, the recent increase in the value of design over raw features could inhibit consideration of raw computing power in product innovation. Another explanation could be that changes to the software market brought about by SaaS, indie development, and app store models seem to promote smaller, simpler end-user software products (e.g. web browsers vs office suites).

I wouldn't be surprised if this stagnation is reversed in the future (5+ years from now) from increased software demands. Areas remain for high-powered consumer hardware, including home servers (an area that has been evolving for some time, with untapped potential in media storage, automation and device integration, as well as resolving increasing privacy concerns of consumer SaaS, community mesh networking and resource pooling, etc), virtual reality, and much more sophisticated, intuitive creative products (programming, motion graphics, 3d modeling, video editing, audio composition, all of which I instinctively feel are ripe for disruption).

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#248

Post by mcv »

simonsarris wrote: post #96

I've felt this way since I built my last desktop in 2008. I was sort-of waiting for the "gee its time to upgrade" mark to roll around in 3 or 4 years, but it hasn't happened yet. Any games I want to play it still runs very well, and it still feels very fast to me even compared to modern off-the-shelf systems. When my friends ask for laptop-buying advice I tell them if they like the keyboard and screen, then its just…

Same here. I feel like we've reached the end of the relevancy of Moore's Law. My PC at home is from early 2008, and it's still an excellent machine. It played all my games wonderfully, even new ones, even 3D ones. I can't imagine a game looking better than The Witcher 2.

Actually, this isn't entirely true; a few months ago, my WinXP install started to play up, to I bought an SSD and installed Win7 on it. Now it runs better than ever. A recent OS helps a lot, as does a SSD.

I can see one reason why I might still want to upgrade, though: The Witcher 3. I doubt it's going to run well on my by then 6 year old machine. But maybe a new graphics card is all I'll need. Or maybe it'll even just work.

My Macbook Pro is a lot more recent, but it also feels like it might last forever. It can handle everything I throw at it. Why would I ever need something more powerful than this?

If I want anything new from my computers now, it's stuff like smaller size, less noise, less power use, etc. They're powerful enough.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#249

Post by mcv »

x0054 wrote: post #153
justincormack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay for a silent PC. I paid a lot for a quiet Apple PowerPC Mac pro back in the day and built a quiet PC but they are not silent and I have moved to a quieter place and I can hear them (yes the Mac runs Fedora now). I have some silent ARM machines but they don't quite cut it yet though maybe the new quad core one will.

I have seen full size ATX cases from Silverstone with passive cooling, where the entire case is machine out of aluminum and acts like an enormous heat sync. Have yet to find a good fanless power supply. The new Mac Pro supposed to be only 12DB. It's hard to beat that, most rooms have ambient noise of at least 18db.

Seasonic seems to have a pretty good fanless power supply.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#250

Post by mcv »

maxmem wrote: post #120
justincormack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay for a silent PC. I paid a lot for a quiet Apple PowerPC Mac pro back in the day and built a quiet PC but they are not silent and I have moved to a quieter place and I can hear them (yes the Mac runs Fedora now). I have some silent ARM machines but they don't quite cut it yet though maybe the new quad core one will.

There are passive coolers for i7s out there. You can even find passively cooled GPUs and PSUs. It's pretty cheap to build a silent pc.

Those passive coolers generally still rely on some airflow. With no case fans at all, I'm told they won't be able to hold up under any decent load.
Post reply on HN