What will computers in 2010, 2015, and 2020 be like?

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2005-06-07 09:50am

Pretty much what the title says. How much are computers going to improve, how much will they cost, and how large are they? Will we achieve hardware capable of rendering real-time photorealistic graphics within the next 5 years? Or how about making VR common within the next ten?

And the all important question, when can we start have holographic orgies?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-07 09:58am

VR popularization is more about content and integration than it is hardware.

Theres allready a feedback touchscreen and pad so i'd say soon

.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-06-07 10:54am

I'm hopin' for eyeglass-projected monitors (a la Perfect Dark) at affordable prices, holographic keyboards, and terabyte hard drives for $200 or less...

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-07 11:07am

theres a 500GB hard drive out now at less than 500 bucks.
Also total immersion interfaces would be awesome

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-06-07 12:10pm

Jan 1st 2010 I predict the following
The first 10Gthz Quad Proccesors are hitting the streets. A QDR-RAM is in use, I'm thinking four gigs is the avarage now. Multi-Terabyte drivers are finaly hitting the street(16-80 TB) Video cards... hard to predict but a card from Nvidia running at 2Gthz with a gig of ram sounds right(Memory starts hitting diminished returns around a gig unless you start going above 1600x1200 quad AA)
Also look for the latest Intel and AMD products not made out of silicon
2015 and 2020 will largley depend on if they can make breakthroughs in various areas such as VR, Cooling(Parts are getting toasty) Projection Tech

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-07 01:38pm

I would guess that by 2020 high-end rigs will begin to incorporate honest-to-god superconductors in their processors. That raises the difficulty of potentially having to be nitrogen-cooled, but also presents incredible potential benefits in terms of processing power.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-07 06:41pm

Inside a decade, personal computing will shift from a focus on ever-faster, rapidly accelerating trends (ie - people will care a lot less about processor speed increases) and more on immersivity, ease of use, simplicity, and customizability. There's been talk about "wearable computers" ever since the early '90s, but I don't think the tech will be there to make 'em common and popular until the mid twenty-teens.

In other words, I expect computers to eventually start getting a lot smaller and simpler instead of faster and hotter. I imagine we'll get implantable PC's with neural interfaces into the common sector by around 2040.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-06-07 09:28pm

I personally think that a computer is going to stay a nondescript box attached to a screen of some sort and a keyboard for a very long time.

VR? Please. Computer makers build computers that suit the largest fraction of the consumer market. The bulk of computer users will still only use them for mundane office and organizational tasks. The typical user wouldn't necessarily care about total immersion, since you don't need to have a VR representation of what you're typing in Word 2010.

I predict that the fastest personal computers with the most brute-force power will be built before 2010 or 2015. We're beginning to slam into the limits of what we can do with current fabrication technologies. The current approach to PC architecture is almost at the end, and with gaming consoles taking on more computer-like and media-center functionality, the focus will shift from muscle to ubiquitousness, and a big noisy affair with more fans than a hovercraft isn't going to be very unobtrusive and ubiquitous. Look at the trends now. Laptops outsold PCs for the first time this last year. In 2010 a quiet little box with a flat-panel display will be the standard computer. It may come standard with some sort of wi-fi networking capability, so you can talk to your gaming console, or synchronize with your phone. It may well come with a touchscreen and stylus, instead of a conventional mouse (though mice have been around since the 1970s, so I wouldn't count them out yet.) Big boxes will still be sold, but they will be sold to an increasingly shrinking niche market.

In 2015, this trend will probably continue. Except we'll want it quieter, cooler, and easier to use. That means a computer of ten or fifteen years from now will probably offer a physical magnetic disk as an accessory, the standard drive being a nonvolatile Flash memory storage solution.

Just my quick thoughts on the matter.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-06-07 09:38pm

Neural interfaces would be a bonus. The technology is doable now, and it isn't as amazingly expensive as you'd first think. To have it as a standard instead of a keyboard or mouse or touchscreen would be great.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-06-08 02:42am

SPOOFE wrote:Inside a decade, personal computing will shift from a focus on ever-faster, rapidly accelerating trends (ie - people will care a lot less about processor speed increases) and more on immersivity, ease of use, simplicity, and customizability.

..................................

In other words, I expect computers to eventually start getting a lot smaller and simpler instead of faster and hotter.

That's for the mainstream audience. How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers? Would they be considered significant enough in the future? Or the market segment would become smaller and smaller and eventually die off?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-06-08 03:18am

Computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them. They could also be used for dating but the computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest.

Mw-hurgn-whey.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-08 03:33am

How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?

I hate to answer this way, because I know every single PC gamer within 200 miles is going to show up outside my house with torches, but I think they're going to become way too small of a niche. They'll likely wind up playing strictly with server-oriented hardware.... there's no incentive in that market to make the machines "pretty".

No, I believe gaming is going to shift towards far more standardized, smaller, sleeker solutions. That's a very genteel way of saying that I think consoles will become the overwhelming standard... with the added caveat that I also think they'll become less distinct from PC's. For instance... imagine consoles communicating with your PC wirelessly to store game data on your home hard drive, instead of having to have one inside the console itself.

Or the market segment would become smaller and smaller and eventually die off?

Nah, it won't die off. People still code for the Commodore 64. But the rewards of the added efforts of overclocking and getting top-notch hardware are getting smaller and smaller.... what incentive is there to get a $800 processor when a $300 proc is just 10% slower? People are willing to settle for less, as long as it's not TOO much less.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-08 04:58am

The main problem with consoles is upgrading and compatability.
Not to mention interface
(Shudders at the thought of Halo on a X-box instead of a sweet PC

)

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-06-08 07:47am

If anything console gaming will become bigger.

It is a good bet Halo will remain the flagship console product of Microsoft for sometime.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-06-08 08:10am

SPOOFE wrote:
How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?
I hate to answer this way, because I know every single PC gamer within 200 miles is going to show up outside my house with torches,

*stands among the crowd outside SPOOFE's house while waving a torch*

SPOOFE wrote:but I think they're going to become way too small of a niche.

<snipeage>

No, I believe gaming is going to shift towards far more standardized, smaller, sleeker solutions.

<snipeage>

I see. This is why I rather worry about the future of Personal Computing. See, from the very start, PC has been significantly more costumizable than other consumer electronics like, say, VCR. This is particularly true for AMD/Intel PC (which was once dubbed "IBM compatibles"). PC consumers were initially people who love to tinker with their stuff like adding a soundcard, replacing the video card, adding more cooling fans, and such. While branded PCs like Dell or Compaq sufficiently fill the need of home/business users, hardcore users tend to buy each component separately to get the best combination possible. This is mostly driven by games, but even people who don't play games very often still love to costumize their PC. In fact, it is actually the part of the fun of having a PC.

However, these days personal computing is more and more accessible to the mainstream audience; particularly since the appearance of things like PDA, Windows XP, and portable MP3 players. Even most cellphones today have "windows-like" interface. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more companies aim to satisfy the mainstream audience, since they're always the biggest market out there. Probably the PC models in the future will be mostly "set-top boxes".

It should be noted, though, that in the mid of 90s there was an attempt to enable the mainstream audience to connect to the internet easily and cheaply; it was called the "net computing". However, it failed miserably. Probably because it was too early?

SPOOFE wrote: Nah, it won't die off. People still code for the Commodore 64. But the rewards of the added efforts of overclocking and getting top-notch hardware are getting smaller and smaller.... what incentive is there to get a $800 processor when a $300 proc is just 10% slower? People are willing to settle for less, as long as it's not TOO much less.

Probably in the future, hardcore PC users would be nothing more than small groups of hobbyst and enthusiast? I wonder whether people can still buy separate components like motherboards and video cards in 2015. If the market is gonna' be too small then I guess PC manufacturers won't bother to sell components anymore. Instead, PCs in the future may be only available in ready-made packages like the way we buy VCR or television today. What do you think?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-06-08 11:40am

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:
How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?
I hate to answer this way, because I know every single PC gamer within 200 miles is going to show up outside my house with torches,
*stands among the crowd outside SPOOFE's house while waving a torch*

SPOOFE wrote:but I think they're going to become way too small of a niche.

<snipeage>

No, I believe gaming is going to shift towards far more standardized, smaller, sleeker solutions.

<snipeage>

I see. This is why I rather worry about the future of Personal Computing. See, from the very start, PC has been significantly more costumizable than other consumer electronics like, say, VCR. This is particularly true for AMD/Intel PC (which was once dubbed "IBM compatibles"). PC consumers were initially people who love to tinker with their stuff like adding a soundcard, replacing the video card, adding more cooling fans, and such. While branded PCs like Dell or Compaq sufficiently fill the need of home/business users, hardcore users tend to buy each component separately to get the best combination possible. This is mostly driven by games, but even people who don't play games very often still love to costumize their PC. In fact, it is actually the part of the fun of having a PC.

However, these days personal computing is more and more accessible to the mainstream audience; particularly since the appearance of things like PDA, Windows XP, and portable MP3 players. Even most cellphones today have "windows-like" interface. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more companies aim to satisfy the mainstream audience, since they're always the biggest market out there. Probably the PC models in the future will be mostly "set-top boxes".

It should be noted, though, that in the mid of 90s there was an attempt to enable the mainstream audience to connect to the internet easily and cheaply; it was called the "net computing". However, it failed miserably. Probably because it was too early?

SPOOFE wrote: Nah, it won't die off. People still code for the Commodore 64. But the rewards of the added efforts of overclocking and getting top-notch hardware are getting smaller and smaller.... what incentive is there to get a $800 processor when a $300 proc is just 10% slower? People are willing to settle for less, as long as it's not TOO much less.
Probably in the future, hardcore PC users would be nothing more than small groups of hobbyst and enthusiast? I wonder whether people can still buy separate components like motherboards and video cards in 2015. If the market is gonna' be too small then I guess PC manufacturers won't bother to sell components anymore. Instead, PCs in the future may be only available in ready-made packages like the way we buy VCR or television today. What do you think?

Nah, I think people are still going to want to be able to upgrade their computers...it's a) cheaper, and b) more fun that way.

I'm no tech-head (yet); however, I've still replaced the monitor, speakers, DVD-ROM (put in a burner), and video card on my Dell, as well as putting in a secondary hard drive. After this computer falls behind the tech-curve, I'm most likely going to try to build a computer from parts, simply because it's the most efficient means of doing so.

If I'd chosen to buy a new computer rather than do th'upgrades, I would have spent about $700 more than I have. Upgrading is simply cheaper in the long run.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-06-08 12:37pm

Molyneux wrote: Nah, I think people are still going to want to be able to upgrade their computers...it's a) cheaper, and b) more fun that way.

I'm no tech-head (yet); however, I've still replaced the monitor, speakers, DVD-ROM (put in a burner), and video card on my Dell, as well as putting in a secondary hard drive. After this computer falls behind the tech-curve, I'm most likely going to try to build a computer from parts, simply because it's the most efficient means of doing so.

If I'd chosen to buy a new computer rather than do th'upgrades, I would have spent about $700 more than I have. Upgrading is simply cheaper in the long run.

Except, ultimately, the vendors are not going to want you to upgrade piecemeal. You will probably be able to upgrade and replace some parts (like the optical drive or permanent storage medium. Maybe they'll even throw you a bone and make the RAM and CPU user-accessible. But designing for this sort of expansion capability will run counter to this whole ubiquitous, unobtrusive information appliance motif that I think developers are going to tend toward in the future.

Not to mention that, like it or not, DRM is here to stay, and its proponents ultimately have more lawyers and money than its opponents. Letting John Q. Public muck about with the internals of their information appliance computer carries the risk of having them circumvent the layers of DRM that will come pre-built into the computer of tomorrow.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-08 05:21pm

The main problem with consoles is upgrading and compatability.

If that were a significant problem in any way, consoles would never have drastically outpaced PC game sales. What they lack in customization, they more than make up for in price and simplicity. People like appliances.

Nah, I think people are still going to want to be able to upgrade their computers...it's a) cheaper, and b) more fun that way.

And that'll still be the case... however, the individual components themselves will become smaller and more standardized. Think something like a cross between a desktop PC and a laptop.

You won't have "cards"... you'll have "modules", little encased chunks of plastic with no exposed PCB or circuits or whatevers. If you REALLY wanted to, you could take this plastic cover off... but why bother? Micro-ATX mobos would be the standard size.... RAM chips will be a fraction of their current size... hard drives will be replaced by flash drives... etc. etc.

In fifteen years, you'll look back at the gargantuan size of today's video cards, for example, and you'll just laugh and laugh and laugh....

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-06-09 12:31am

I just thought: is it going to be significant increase in bits? Now we have 64-bit CPU; are we going to have, say, 512-bit or even a megabit CPU? What's the limitation for such thing?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-09 12:58am

It took like 10 years to go from 32-bit to 64-bit. I don't think we'll see 128-bit processors until desktop computers are capable of 8 exabytes of RAM.

(32-bit can go to 8 gigabytes, right now motherboards only fit like 4 gigs normally. 64-bit goes to 16 exabytes, so I doubt we'll see a need for 128-bit until motherboards support 8 exabytes standard RAM).

That will be a looooong time from now.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-06-09 01:11am

2 to the 32nd power is about 4 billion, not 8.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-06-09 01:31am

Praxis wrote:It took like 10 years to go from 32-bit to 64-bit. I don't think we'll see 128-bit processors until desktop computers are capable of 8 exabytes of RAM.

Motherboard/RAM limitation aside, why it took so long for the CPU to move to the higher bits?

If we take a look at video card memory interface, it didn't take long to move from 32-bit (remember those old S3 chips?) to 64-bit (the likes of Matrox Mystique and S3 Trio 64), then 128-bit (nVidia RIVA 128, STB Lightspeed 128). Why it takes longer for the CPU compared to those?

Also, Nintendo 64 first came out at 1996, while at that time the highest CPU was Pentium Pro, which is of course 32-bit.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-09 02:39am

Beowulf wrote:2 to the 32nd power is about 4 billion, not 8.

You're right, it's 4 gigs. For some reason I got mixed up.

Definitely 4 GB.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-09 02:40am

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
Praxis wrote:It took like 10 years to go from 32-bit to 64-bit. I don't think we'll see 128-bit processors until desktop computers are capable of 8 exabytes of RAM.
Motherboard/RAM limitation aside, why it took so long for the CPU to move to the higher bits?

If we take a look at video card memory interface, it didn't take long to move from 32-bit (remember those old S3 chips?) to 64-bit (the likes of Matrox Mystique and S3 Trio 64), then 128-bit (nVidia RIVA 128, STB Lightspeed 128). Why it takes longer for the CPU compared to those?

Also, Nintendo 64 first came out at 1996, while at that time the highest CPU was Pentium Pro, which is of course 32-bit.

Wasn't the N64 a 64-bit graphics chip, not CPU?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-06-09 02:48am

Praxis wrote:Wasn't the N64 a 64-bit graphics chip, not CPU?

IIRC it was. Neverthelss, why CPU always falling behind graphic chip in terms of bits?