Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
BP wrote:
> So Dave, what do you see as the next significant *functional* advancement
> for the home PC user?
Oh wow, if I could definitively answer that question HP should put me on
the board
I can tell you what Intel thinks/thought (depending on when you ask) the
big thing would be and that's multimedia, in all it's glory. We were all
supposed to be streaming full screen DTV/HDTV, downloading movies (paid
for, of course), while simultaneously burning DVD movies of our kiddies
taken with the camcorder. But, for one, broadband hasn't exploded at the
rate hoped for (neither has DTV and HDTV, even with government mandates,
but that's another story). It also seems to me that high power media apps
(HTPC for one) are overly complex (for the home user), rather buggy, poorly
integrated, unrefined, and comparatively expensive.
As one example of unrefined (just my opinion), I know of one HTPC
'integrated' application that boots up with a menu. I.E. "what do you want
to do?" Well, dad gummit, I'd like the thing to boot up in the same state
it was in when it left. In my case, the TV. My TV, the thing it's
supposedly replacing, does. I'd like to be able to hit the button and walk
away, not sit there for the 'next question'. How about being REAL clever
and go to the TV normally but play the DVD if there's one in the drive,
instead of having to exit 'TV mode' and enter 'DVD player' mode? Maybe I'm
odd but it seems a rather simple thing to have thought of (I'll admit it's
also humorous to watch my brother-in-law fiddle with a gaggle of switches
trying to figure out what component is connected to what in his 'hardware'
home theater, so it's not just a 'software thing')
I'm not saying that description applies to every one of them. It's just an
example of how that particular one left a lot of thought out of the
product. Others have their own problems.
I have some other multimedia ideas of my own but not all the pieces have
been invented yet.
As for other apps, personally, I'd like to see more development in voice
recognition as well as AI, but I'm not 'in charge'.
One thing I'm rather surprised about is, considering the traditional
'fight' in a family to see who gets the computer when, that there isn't
much in the way of multiple terminal activity going on. I'm not sure that's
the best solution but I just don't see much discussion about it other than
"get another computer."
> While I can agree that a dual core processor for a user who only surfs the
> web is comical,
See above. It's just 'late'.
While that's true for the moment, that same kind of argument was made about
1 Ghz processors but have you looked at the load on a decent sized DivX
stream? Scale that up to an HDTV image and you got some serious processing
to do while 'surfing' the news (even if nothing else).
> it has been my experience (primarily with IMB compatible
> PC's and the Windows OS since 1991) that it is really not the processor that
> drives the need to upgrade. It is the need for modern peripherals and OS
> compatibility with them that drives the average home user. The processor
> sort of just comes along for the ride. Home users today have a need for
> several USB connected devices so they desire multiple USB connections, front
> and rear. That means they need a new case and a mainboard/chipset to
> accommodate the connections. (I'm being overly simplistic here, there are
> obviously multiple needs at work). Then the OS "needs" to be updated to make
> use of the new functions and the new OS has minimal/recommended hardware
> requirements. So you find a mainboard that fits the needs list and
> hardware/memory requirements and that mainboard and chipset is designed
> around the processor, which of course is the latest and the greatest
> available. You didn't want to upgrade your processor, you wanted a bunch of
> freakin USB connections!
Perhaps, but I'd have just bought a hub.
> So now let's look at today's PC market. We've got PCI-express cards coming
> out, PATA HDDs are looking kind of Mesozoic, etc. So you bounce over to
> Newegg and look at mainboards to see what's new that has the "needed"
> features and there they are: 955 chipsets all built around dual core
> processors from Intel or AMD. 865 chipset boards out of stock or in the
> specials bin.
Not me. Shoot, I'm still 32 bit and PATA <gasp>.
Until SATA gets more of the concurrent command processing added and/or
drive speed increase significantly there's not a compelling reason to
change (even though my board has the ports).
> So that's the market reality. Old as capitalism itself. You don't repair the
> car, you trade it in.
Don't repair a car, trade it in? Man, you live in a different world that
*I* do. LOL
> Smart? No. Unless you are on the board of D at Intel.
The electronic repair/replace decision is based in capitalism but not for
the reason I imagine you mean. Automated production facilities churn
electronics out for a pittance but repair techs don't like working for 10
cents an hour so it's your choice: pay $75, or more, to repair a 10 buck
NIC or buy a new one.
And if you want to 'blame' Intel, and the rest, for making the things so
cheap in the first place then so be it but it hardly seems rational to me.
> You seem like a knowledgeable guy who's been around a while, do you see
> anything on the horizon that would actually justify a system upgrade for the
> home PC user?
Depends on what they want to do. If one is heavy into multimedia, or the
latest game, then there might be a reason but probably not for most home users.
Well, that's not as restrictive as I made it sound. Have you ever timed
crunching a DVD? Wouldn't it be nice if it took half the time?
Now, consider. Maybe the reason more people don't do it now is because it's
such a pain in the neck and takes so long.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram