Nine Ingredients Essential To The Modern PC Experience

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was an odd article. You really could not think of 10? or the normal 20 for these types of articles?
Also, what is this even about? I was expecting something about what would give computers a 'modern' feel compared to computers from a few years ago, but instead we get a 'look back' of things like ISA busses and CRT monitors.

Just for fun, here are my top 10 Ingredients for a truly 'Modern' feeling PC:
1) RAM, having enough ram in a system where you never dip into virtual memory, and where prefetching can keep your most often used programs in memory so that they open instantly. DDR3 also removes a lot of the bottleneck of older DDR2 systems, but even a Core2Duo/quad on DDR2 can feel quite modern when you have enough of it, and it is paired with other things on this list.
2) SSD. Fast to near instant load times on the OS and software. Even a slow SSD will make a system feel more modern than one that runs on a HDD. This is probably the biggest single item that can make a computer feel modern or old no matter what other parts are being used in the system.
3) Silence. Even for the highest end experience there is absolutely no need to have excessive fan or drive noise anymore. And if you are on a 'normal' modern computer it should be absolutely silent under even the heaviest of loads.
4) Form factor and case design. Nothing says 1990s like an over sized case with lots of crazy lights in it. Modern computers should either be nice and compact, or if you need a big machine it should be stylish and sleek. There is a place for lighting in a case (for me it is often the only way I know it is on if my screen is off), but there are lots of very nice looking options that are still inexpensive.
5) Screen. The display is the part of your computer that you will look at for years and years. Having an IPS display with a wide color gamut and good contrast ratio goes a long way to making even an older machine look like it is modern. Touch is not a necessity (not even preferred), but having a screen that looks nice is a modern necessity, and even a newer machine on an old display can make it feel old. I would also say that when high resolution displays are available, then that will also be a requirement for a modern computer. When I look at the display on my phone where I literally cannot see the pixels unless I am holding it less than a foot from my eyes, and then I look at my computer screen where I wish there was a better AA solution for text. Those high phone resolutions just give the display a 'print-like' quality that is really easy on the eyes, and I cannot wait for it to be available and affordable for the desktop.
6) Audio. Desktop speakers have come a really long way over the last 5-10 years. I personally use some really old stereo speakers on my system, but my wife's PC proves that you do not need big ugly speakers (or to even see the speakers at all) to have near theater sound quality. There is no need for a modern system to have big high-profile speakers to attain respectable sound quality, nor is there any excuse to have crap speakers as even relatively cheap 2.0 speakers can have a fairly full sound, and just about all 2.1 systems have a decent tone without a lot of money involved. Audio is 9/10ths of your visual experience, and having tinny audio can be the difference between assuming you are working with an extremely old or new machine.
7) Processor. Having a duel core with HT is a minimum standard to having a modern feeling computer anymore. Straight duel core is simply not enough for even basic multi-tasking these days, and a quad core should be the standard of having a 'good' computer. All modern OSs and web browsers are pretty good about thread management, and can spread the load optimally over 4 cores. Having that 4 thread processing capability is worlds more important than intruction sets or clock speeds when it comes to how modern a CPU feels. Even an older Core2Quad can feel quite modern when paired with the other things listed on this list.
8) A modern OS. WinXP is quick to load only because it is a small OS. The minute you start using other programs under the OS brings a dead giveaway of the age of the platform. Windows 7/8, and even newer builds of Linux go great lengths to try and prepare for your workflow by preloading applicaitons into memory so that when you are ready to open a program most of the legwork is already done. Add to that the support for more modern hardware, security features, and even cloud integration goes a long way over older platforms to providing a modern experience with modern workflows and programs.
9) Browser. If you are not using the most up to date version of IE, FF, or Chrome then you are not getting the most out of your user experience. Personally I like Chrome the best (even though I am working at moving away from the google universe), but the current versions of all 3 browsers are quite usable, and have improved the user experience dramatically over the last year. Most likely a lot of what you do is in a web browser, and it is only going to increase as time goes on.
10) Platform connectivity. While not a 'requirement' yet, things like USB3, wireless RF and WiFi, HDMI, DisplayPort, and Thunderbolt are becoming a requirement to make things 'modern'. Setting up my mother-in-laws computer last fall had her blown away that all I had to hook up was the power and HDMI cable. Her audio was via HDMI, internet is wireless, keys and mice are wireless and I had the receiver hooked up inside the machine, and her printer was on the network. While most of the people on this site are not daunted by having lots of cables coming out of their computers, I know that my modern computer has a lot less wires coming out of it today than it had 10 years ago, and each of those wires that do come out carry a much heavier load and are expected to behave like internal parts now where before their slow performance was excusable because they simply were external devices. I would not go so far as to say that everything needs the absolute newest connectivity to feel modern, but I think there is still a pervasive feeling among the general public that fewer but faster wires (or no wires) is a requirement to making a system at least feel like it is modern.

-I did not put the GPU as a requirement for a 'modern' feeling PC because for a normal non-gaming PC I have found the iGPU to be adequate for desktop and multimedia needs for over 5 years now, and if you are playing games, then even the most basic aftermarket GPU can bring quality visuals to life, and anything more than that is just icing on the cake, but does not really make the overall system feel 'modern'. that is more an issue of capability rather than the smoothness of the system.

-While I did not add it to this, I think that 'soon' (within the next 2 years) it will be a requirement to have some form of touch/kinnect/leapmotion style capability to make a system feel modern. No, I will NEVER touch my computer screen, but when leap motion becomes available I will absolutely use it to add multi-touch and gestural support to my desktop. Things like pinch to zoom, and rotation are just easier to do with your hands than a scroll wheel, especially if you have the 1:1 afforded by a touch screen or leapmotion setup that you simply don't have with a mouse. And (like it or not) these types of interactions are going to become more pervasive as smartphones and tablets become more popular, so it will not be long before your PC will at least need the capability to have these types of input, even if they are not your primary input.

-Lastly, the tech is not available yet, but the minute that natural language speech control is naively available at an OS level, then it will be a requirement to have on a 'modern' computer. Voice control that we have today feels like glorified doss in a vocal format. It is akward, it is not intuitive, and it is difficult to know what options are available at any given time. The minute we can use voice control to give casual, conversational, and native commands to a computer, rather than using voice to select options on the graphical interface like we do today (which is often easier done with a mouse or keyboard), then I think it will open up a lot of opportunities for new ways of doing things and multi tasking on the PC. Sadly, I think we are a long long way away from this type of interaction.
The biggest problem with this type of natural voice integration is that the computer needs to be aware of the intent of your words rather than just simple word commands, and also the OS needs to be deeply aware of the capabilities/features of the software and hardware of your machine in order to follow these commands without asking you 100 questions to narrow down your specific workflow that you want the computer to follow. It will transform the end user experience from our current process of Idea->How->Result, to one of Idea->Result where the computer figures out the 'How' which is often the part that holds most users back.
Like I said... while todays speech recognition is actuially quite good, we are a long ways away from the computer moving from recognizing words, to understanding words in any meaningful/productive way.
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]I like how Tom's shows a picture of a single-core Athlon 64 for "Multi-Core Processors".[/citation]

Why do you think that?

It's an Athlon 64 X2 4800, actually. Dual core... check the model number. :)
 
I used to have lots of 8-bit ISA cards such as modems and serial/parallel interface cards. They never really needed 16-bit...

Oh well... Like 15 years ago I had that very Diamond S3 card in my PC. I had initially purchased it with 2MB onboard RAM and purchased the chips from 3rd-party to expanding it to 4MB.

We didn't have PCIe back then but we could could use SLI on our Voodoo cards through a proprietary cable.
 

Because I'm holding in my hand the IHS to the de-lidded 4800+ G2 Brisbane that's being used in this PC I'm currently on right now.

And the IHS says "AMD Athlon 64 X2".

I also have a 3800+ Manchester IHS and a 3600+ G1 Brisbane IHS here with me - both of which say "AMD Athlon 64 X2". By comparison the 3500+ Venice IHS I have here says only "AMD Athlon 64".


I'm kind of depressed that I've been downvoted to be honest... I thought people knew their CPU history better than this? 🙁


EDIT: According to the wikipedia's there is no single core 4800+. You sure that image isn't photoshopped or of an unreleased CPU or something?

EDIT 2: Photo of the IHSes in question to prove that I'm not crazy:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/RnghXH8GvvCyPqFzXh7AztMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom] I thought people knew their CPU history better than this? [/citation]

Tip: Google the model number of the CPU before making a fool of yourself after you've already been corrected.

I'll help: ADA4800DAA6CD

It's an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, chief. For goodness sake, mhokett even LINKED to it. :)
 
One of the first computers i ever used had a green phosphor monitor. That thing was trippy, i still remember sometimes going to bed and having the C:> cursor burned onto my eyes.
 

Then what's up with this? (photo of the 4 Athlon 64 IHSes):
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/RnghXH8GvvCyPqFzXh7AztMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

Had to gamma-correct the 3DS to make the screen visible. The Fate/stay night is to reference this post of mine on another forum to show that I'm not an anonymous troll:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1020608/the-rare-unusual-cpu-club/180#post_14713818

CPUs in image:
Single 3500+ 939: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%203500+%20-%20ADA3500DAA4BW%20%28ADA3500BWBOX%29.html
Dual 3800+ 939: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%20X2%203800+%20-%20ADA3800DAA5BV%20%28ADA3800BVBOX%29.html
Dual 3600+ AM2: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%20X2%203600+%20-%20ADO3600IAA5DD%20%28ADO3600DDBOX%29.html
Dual 4800+ AM2: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%20X2%204800+%20-%20ADO4800IAA5DO%20%28ADO4800DOBOX%29.html

Doesn't this mean said 4800+ Toledo dual core CPU is labeled as single core CPU, even though it isn't single core? That just seems...strange.
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]Doesn't this mean said 4800+ Toledo dual core CPU is labeled as single core CPU, even though it isn't single core? [/citation]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where is a dual core CPU labeled as a single core?
 

Did you not look at my photo?:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/RnghXH8GvvCyPqFzXh7AztMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

All the dual core CPUs say "AMD Athlon 64 X2" while the one single core Athlon 64 I have says "AMD Athlon 64". Therefore, a CPU that says "AMD Athlon 64" without the X2 should be single-core, no? But apparently the socket 939 Toledo 4800+ is a dual-core even though the IHS lacks the "X2" that is present on Manchester and Brisbanes (also Windsor, but I lapped the IHS to the point the label isn't there anymore).
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom] Therefore, a CPU that says "AMD Athlon 64" without the X2 should be single-core, no? [/citation]

That's your concern? AMD has messed with the naming conventions a number of times. It doesn't mean much.
 

If it's a mess-up then why use it for a photo demonstrating multi-core CPUs?
 
[citation][nom]Onus[/nom]If the mouse belongs there, the QWERTY keyboard certainly does too.[/citation]

I bet you didn't know that the qwerty keyboard was designed to force the user to type as slow as possible. because back when they had typewrites pressing the keys too fast would cause them to jam.
So qwerty = as inefficient as possible.
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]If it's a mess-up then why use it for a photo demonstrating multi-core CPUs?[/citation]

Who said it was a mess up? What's messed up about it?

Whether or not you approve of AMD's nomenclature, it's a picture of multi-core CPU, one of the first ones in fact, appropriately used in a picture that talks about the significance of multi-core CPUs.

I'm really not sure why you're convinced this is a problem when no-one else can see any issue here.
 
[citation][nom]Fokissed[/nom]Those CRTs were super high-end, and very few people owned such screens. 1024x768 was the most popular resolution until at least 2009. Even in 2012, low resolution screens are still the most popular. Is it really surprising that a high-end niche product from the past is better (arguably) than a current, affordable, mainstream product?If you think high end PC components are loud, then you've never used a computer with vacuum tubes, floppy drives, early model CD drives, a dot matrix printer, a tape drive, certain CRT monitors, ancient hard drives, or been anywhere near a mainframe (which seem to be cooled by industrial hair dryers). Computers are getting quieter, with the exception of a few very high-end niche products (6990/690). Even then, most people going that far will have water cooling, which is nearly silent.Edit: forums ate my links[/citation]

Well, I used 1600x1200 on my 17" CRT screen back in the late '90s. Maybe XGA was standard for my monitor but UXGA worked fine as well.
 
I came to see this because of the "Title" and found something different. History is good, but title and this article apear to be at odds with each other. I will go read something else, some where else.
 

The Manchester 3800+ I own is also one of the very first multi-core CPUs, in fact its release is only 2 months later than the Toledo 4800+.

To me it seems like AMD didn't make a separate IHS for the very VERY first dual-core Athlon models. Doesn't that make them the exception, rather than the rule?
 
@30" 1600p displays: if dell's are too costly, you can get cheaper korean monitors. get one at your own risk though.

i consider (non-hdd) optical disk drives and optical media, flash-based storage tech, wireless communication (e.g. centrino processors), parts of modern pc experience too. not in the top 9... but i'd put flash at #10.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]No need to go to the past. I'm using a 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitor right now... Dell sells 'em.[/citation]

And they cost more than tablets of higher resolution. Dell rips you (and others like you) off. Until anything is done about it, I'm stuck with my 4k HD IBM T221 from 2001.
 
[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]Doesn't that make them the exception, rather than the rule?[/citation]

It's a picture of one of the first multi-core CPUs accurately chosen as a representation of a multi-core CPU.

Your predilection with the nomenclature doesn't change any of that. It's entirely irrelevant.
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]"The next major step in the evolution of the expansion bus came in 1993 with the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus. Thirty-two bits wide and clocked at 33 MHz, PCI could move up to 132 MB/s, and it was the first bus conceptualized with plug-and-play in mind."PCI was NOT really the first. Microchannel (MCA) in 1987s with IBM's PS/2 line of computers... as IBM tried to create their own standard since they threw together the "PC" with standard parts and couldn't patent it like Apple, Amiga or even Atari.But before then, Amiga's ZORRO slots were PnP in 1984 (before Plug N Play had a name) - autoconfig bus which came out in 1985 and soon after, the Mac II with its NuBus also in 1987. These were 16bit. In 1990, Amiga ZORRO III was released that was 32bit... years before PCI.There was also VLB (Vesa Local Bus) which was created by the PC industry to go against IBM's Microchannel... it was short lived as PCI quickly and rightfully killed VLB and MCA. VLB cards were all huge as the slots were quite long. Something that most people do NOT miss.Again... the PC market was always substandard to others. Hence using a "PC" until Windows95 was always a pretty sub-standard experience.[/citation]

VLB was better than PCI, running at full base speed rather than 1/2. The only thing that killed it was greed. VLB video cards on Pentium would have been better than PCI.

eg: 486DX 133 (33hz Bus) VLB speed = 33Mhz
Pentium 100 (50Mhz Bus) PCI speed = 25Mhz
 
I still use a Philips 19" CRT monitor for graphics work and to play older games which lack anisotropic filtering, plus I can set it to widescreen 1080p60 via an EDID override (although it makes the screen 17" and I use it only for games as the flickering is way too noticeable on a white background). I would love to buy a very good 22" 2160p60 monitor and see how it compares to the CRT, but unfortunately I have to wait until HDMI 2.0 is released before I can purchase such a monitor.
 


Everything is moving toward cloud computing and online distribution (Steam / iTunes, etc) - the days of actual media being required are coming to an end.

While on the subject I'm surprised they didn't include high speed internet access and wifi. I remember the days of 56K and slow ass modems that took like a year to download a 10MB file, now that can be done in 50 seconds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.