And the all important question, when can we start have holographic orgies?
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Moderator: Thanas
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?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.
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".How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?
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.Or the market segment would become smaller and smaller and eventually die off?
*stands among the crowd outside SPOOFE's house while waving a torch*SPOOFE wrote: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,How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?
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>
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?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.
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.Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:*stands among the crowd outside SPOOFE's house while waving a torch*SPOOFE wrote: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,How about hardcore users like PC gamers and hardware modders/overclockers?
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?
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?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.
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.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.
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.The main problem with consoles is upgrading and compatability.
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.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.
Motherboard/RAM limitation aside, why it took so long for the CPU to move to the higher bits?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.
Wasn't the N64 a 64-bit graphics chip, not CPU?Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Motherboard/RAM limitation aside, why it took so long for the CPU to move to the higher bits?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.
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.