The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by carterschonwald » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 7:33 AM UTC

dikei wrote: post #336

carterschonwald wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually in the specific example I'm thinking about, i'm talking about memory locality being the performance difference (and in this case, array layout for matrix multiplication). The naive obvious "dot product" matrix mult of two Row Major matrices is 100-1000x slower than somewhat fancier layouts, or even simply transposing the right hand matrix can make a significant difference, let alone more fancy things. Often…

This is like replacing the compiler optimizer algorithm with your own, similar to the method of writing critical function in Assembly, right? Still I don't see the connection to Haskell, can you elaborate ?

oh, thats just me rambling about why i don't trust compiler autovectorization :)

well: 1) i've been slowly working on a numerical computing / data analysis substrate for haskell for over a year now.

2) the haskell c ffi is probably the nicest c ffi you'll ever see. Also pretty fast, basically just a known jump/funcall! And no marshaling overhead too!

3) theres a lot of current and pending over the next year work to make it easy to write HPC grade code using haskell. Some approaches involve interesting libs for runtime code gen (the llvm-general lib for haskell is AMAZING).

Theres also a number of ways where ghc haskell will likely get some great performance improvements for numerical code over the next 1-2 years! (i've a few ideas for improving the native code gen / SIMD support over the next year that I hope to experiment with as time permits)

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

#392

Post by claudius » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 9:41 AM UTC

rayhano wrote: post #381

claudius wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Suspend to RAM, 8 GB of RAM and as many tabs open as I like (usually none, but Opera appears to handle 100s quite well, too). You must be using PCs wrong. > 2. Focus. Desktop interfaces seem to be desperate to put everything onto one screen. I have a PC and a Mac (both laptop…

Your point of view is certainly interesting. As you suggest, I simply must be using PCs wrong. But then, the ipad doesn't need an instruction manual, or to be used perfectly, for me to use that right.

Operating an automobile requires you to have passed a theoretical and practical exam and attended numerous lessons. Bobby-cars[0] are given to kids as young as two-or-so. Which one is preferable to get from A to B?

Of course, you should generally aim to use the tools that suit your needs and capabilities, but preferring a tablet over a proper PC strikes me as rather odd.

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

#393

Post by X-Istence » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 9:42 AM UTC

madvoid wrote: post #196

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can pop-up Activity Monitor any time in the day, with multiple apps open, and it's guaranteed the app using the most memory is a browser ( any browser). As a data point: Safari is using 600+MB now with just HN and GitHub open. It's using more memory than all the other apps (editor, terminal, mail, Rdio, Skype) combined. 600MB is not much by today's standards, but comparatively, is ridiculously wasteful. It's a damn…

Mavericks does amazing things to memory usage. My machine has 4GB as well, and safari went from 1GB+ memory usage to 200MB memory usage for the same amount of tabs. Under ML, I was swapping constantly; now, no swap at all.

Did you count up all of the individual processes? Webkit is now finally on par with Chrome in that each tab is it's own running process.

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

#394

Post by lttlrck » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 12:24 PM UTC

justincormack wrote: post #108

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…

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.

Intel NUCs [1] are well engineered and extremely quiet.

[1] http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-d54250wyk...

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

#395

Post by boomlinde » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 2:01 PM UTC

Xixi wrote: post #368

6d0debc071 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What can you do on a PC that you cannot do on a tablet? Easy copy pasting, selecting specific parts of a document... basically anything requiring precision and speed. You can add a keyboard and a mouse to it I suppose, but at that point you may as well have got a laptop.

That's just convenience. Do you really think many people will keep forking $X00 for PCs just for a little bit of convenience needed only once in a while? I respectfully disagree. A couple of anecdotes, for lack of evidence: My grandfather (89 years old today) switched to the iPad. He was one of the pioneer of computer usage in France (in the steal industry)... at a time when programs were punched on cards! He retired…

Well, that "bit of convenience" varies in size a lot over the market. If you intend to do any typing over a long period of time, using a tablet just isn't a good idea ergonomically. There are may other reasons to stick to a PC, but this one seems inherent to the tablet format, and once you add a keyboard and a cradle to position the tablet ergonomically, you've lost every advantage that using it might have had in the first place.

So yes, I'd say that there's a large market of people who would rather shell out $X00 for a little bit of convenience rather than $Y00 for something that will be totally unfit for their application. "it's not coming back to the PC world I grew up in" is a truism, but no indicator of the future market shares of PCs and tablets. Also, is there any basis to the claim that you are in the minority?

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

#396

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Oct 27, 2013, 12:55 AM UTC

nlawalker wrote: post #299

roc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those users are overwhelmingly the ones that tablets suit just fine. That's the problem in this type of "PCs are fine, people just don't have to upgrade" argument. (And I've made it myself, before I really worked it through and took stock of just how far tablets have already come.) The use cases satisfied by an old PC could all be satisfied just as well by today's tablets. Yes, the software support for keyboards,…

I love the idea of device docks and I would very much like to see things go that way. I think docks have some hurdles to jump in the consumer market, though. They're unsexy - I think most people associate them with boring enterprise computers and boring enterprise work, and they tend to be big and ugly. They're expensive too, considering that most people view them as nothing but plastic with a few connectors and wire…

Docks will take off when you can make them wireless.

My tablet can connect to my wifi when I come home and sit at my desk. There's no reason at all why it can't connect to my mouse+keyboard at the same moment; so someone needs to solve the technical problems of it being able to connect to my large monitor wirelessly, and we're set.

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

#397

Post by rayhano » Sun, Oct 27, 2013, 12:03 PM UTC

claudius wrote: post #392

rayhano wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point of view is certainly interesting. As you suggest, I simply must be using PCs wrong. But then, the ipad doesn't need an instruction manual, or to be used perfectly, for me to use that right.

Operating an automobile requires you to have passed a theoretical and practical exam and attended numerous lessons. Bobby-cars[0] are given to kids as young as two-or-so. Which one is preferable to get from A to B? Of course, you should generally aim to use the tools that suit your needs and capabilities, but preferring a tablet over a proper PC strikes me as rather odd.

You analogy would make more sense if you added the word 'performance' to the statement.

A car is fairly intuitive to drive. Driving licenses are required for safety.

The comments you make are akin to performing in a sports car, where concentration and accuracy is key.

You car analogy would fit if you had PCs as a F1 car and tablets as a Mini. F1 car is for speed and requires perfecting to get the tyres working right. A Mini, you can pretty much drive through all sorts of faults and be none-the-wiser, because performance just isn't an issue. Well, 90% of the time. :)

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

#398

Post by johngalt » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 6:20 AM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #386

johngalt wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite interesting thank you for sharing. The idea that constraints can guide creativity. It reminds me of pg's essay on distractions. I've got something of a different view. I was never limited TV or game consumption. My parents had the mindset of 'you'll have to learn to self moderation at some point, better to do it when the stakes are small'. They wanted me to learn to recognize when something I enjoyed was having…

Your observations are interesting. I'm in the early days of this process with my kids, but I do limit their tv and game time. I've found (like the grandparent poster) that an absence of TV and games leads to other pursuits: sports, reading, programming, writing books, etc. To give you an example: I just got the national school results. My son kicked ass in a school that underperformed. One of the key differences I've…

Having thought more about this. I'm leaning more towards the pro-limitations side of the argument. Clearly games are more addictive now. I doubt many lives were ruined over pac-man and missile command. If young me had grown up around WoW perhaps I'd be different?

You mention the gaming binges at friend's houses. If you have the opportunity, ask the parents if those marathon sessions happen on a normal night. There are a few instances in my youth were I recall overindulgence, and most were at the urging of friends. Friends who were manic in their desire to get as much time in as possible before their parents returned. The idea of 'limits against overuse don't apply the second you leave my house' is precisely what got many of my friends in trouble later in life. Merely trying to assist with perspective. Please don't take this as a critique of your view (as I'm in agreement) or parenting ability (congrats on the high test scores).

>I'm dubious about your claim, particularly as most levels of freedom and responsibility are gradual with most kids ... But I have seen stranger things.

I'd like to point out that the scenario I describe wasn't a free for all. Falling short of expectations was met with discipline and restrictions as any child could expect. Simply that regulation of tv/game time was a personal choice provided that expectations were met.

The important part is the guidance. Finding the best way to show the kiddos how to recognize a bad habit. I'm thinking a good middle ground would be a discussion where the time limits are decided, but then applied universally. Something doesn't stop being a bad habit just because you're at a friends house.

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

#399

Post by mattlutze » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 9:35 AM UTC

hvidgaard wrote: post #358

mattlutze wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"However, my iPad or iPhone will call for my attention every few minutes, which is not liberating at all." This feeling has been creeping on me ever since I succumbed to a smartphone for work a few years ago. Instead of releasing me from some of the lower-level tasks I deal with day to day, this phone, these devices, nag me to pay attention to all of my friends back home, all of my old classmates, former colleagues,…

You can turn all that nagging off, so the only notifications you'll get, will be calls and texts. I really think some people blame the smartphone for being a distracting element, and it's not wrong that it can be distracting, but it's because the user allow it to. You can turn off all notifications, so you decide when to see if there is something of interest. For instance, my phone does not tell me when a mail arrive…

"You can turn all that nagging off, so the only notifications you'll get, will be calls and texts."

Very true.

I think what I've feeling, and trying to describe, is a rejection of expanding my consciousness into the Internet. A large portion of my social groups use those social networks as extensions of themselves, for communication and interaction.

With immediate access to those channels it's difficult to ignore the draw of that technology. And not using those services regularly ends up being the same as not using them at all.

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

#400

Post by robotresearcher » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 5:28 PM UTC

thom wrote: post #382

robotresearcher wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code is harder because editing text is harder. Text input and manipulation is just not very good on tablets. Even if you plug a keyboard into iOS editing is still worse than WordPerfect circa 1988. You might type stuff in OK, but manipulating text is awful.

Yeah, I have no idea how Shakespeare got anything done.

Sure. 884,421 words[1]. And with that workload, I bet he used the most efficient technology available at the time to do it.

[1] http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/stats/