Future Trends In Home Computing

James Bell writes: "I just read an interesting article over here that talked about future trends in home computing and what is and isn't driving the home computer market. I thought it was interesting that the author said that more people where adding DVD players and surround sound speakers to their home computer in hopes of makeing it their new home theater. I think a lot of people are bringing their computer to the home theater in the family or media room and converging it that way."

Comments

Gateway had this idea several years ago

[KarmaBlackballed]

Gateway was ahead of its time. About 5 years ago they sold a home entertainment package built around a PC and a large screen TV. Price was steep and it did not catch on at the time.

Perhaps now is the time.

Re:Gateway had this idea several years ago

[MisterQueue]

As an Ex-Gateway worker (ACK I'm OUTED!) who was working there at the time these came out, I can say that even on the back-end these things were nice. Lovely resolutions and compatability all around, the problems? Price and Support...the support teams weren't really sure of what to do with these since they weren't strictly PC units (they've ironed some of that out now I hear from colleagues who are still there). The Price was ungodly, $4,500 for one of those babies, which is nice for a 32" screen but I'll go get me a plasma screen for that price and get a Nvidia Geforce 3 or ATI with tv out and do about the same thing for less at better quality. I dunno, just seems like an unecessary hybrid to me.

-Q

Comprimise

[vought]

"Many people" may be bringing their computers into the living space to use as media players, but that doesn't mean that they are well-suited to that task.

Remotes? An optional, kludgy addition to a computer.

Sound quality? I'd rather not use stereo miniplug -> RCA jacks for sound, thanks. But that's what's on the majority of PCs.

Video quality? Acceptable, I'm sure, but what about the aforementioned remote control of all thos nifty features?

Stick with components - replace or upgrade pieces as needed - just like with your PC.

Re:Comprimise

[joshamania]

I beg to differ on the video quality. I've got a video out (RCA/S-VIDEO either or) on my Geforce and the quality of DVD's on my television is shite. I can select 640x480 or 800x600, neither of which is suited to my television.

When I bought my computer, I figured I'd pop it down next to my television and not have to purchase a DVD player. I watched one movie from my computer/television setup.

I then proceeded straight to Circuit City to buy a real DVD player.

Re:Comprimise

[KernelHappy]

Your pretty quick to just dismiss the value of a PC in a home theater system. Your points are valid but only because the better solutions are not obvious. I still firmly believe that you're better off purchasing a dedicated DVD player but the experience of using a computer on a TV can be greatly improved as follows:

1) Remotes
There are many options here and many of them are better than kludgy. I personally use a cheapy Packard Bell Fastmedia remote that can be purchase for between $9-15 online or at computer shows. It consists of a cheapy receiver and a remote. There are even better solutions out there especially for a geeks home theater. Some contain IR receivers and transmitters, allowing you to customize macros and control more than the computer and the components. The biggest problem with these solutions are not the remotes themselves but A/V equipments general lack of a singal standard for connecting multiple devices together to act as one devices (would be nice to power on the DVD player and automatically select the input, audio configuration and picture adjustments).

I personally use a program called Girder to control my win box. Another popular program for linux is Lirc.

2) Sound Quality
Newer sound cards have improved drastically in terms of SQ but you are correct, the minijack is less than ideal and computers in general add noise to the mix. For a better solution connect you computer to your A/V receiver using one of the digital audio inputs. This removes the possibility of the minijack or the computer itself adding noise to the analog signal (most newer A/V receivers have digital inputs that use an internal DAC). Mp3s may not be the ultimate in high fidelty, but for most pop music its good enough and having a huge library online for casual listening is worth the trade off.

3) Video Quality
This is as much a fault of the computer as it is the fault of the TV. Most TV-Out capable video cards have pretty crappy picture quality, in fact I've yet to see one that knocked my socks off. Dedicated VGA converters generally do a better job, but are expensive and probably still won't give a picture as good as a $200 DVD player. But for the lucky few who have HDTVs there is hope. Some HDTV's come standard with a VGA or RGB interface and this is the ideal solution for hooking up your computer to such a set. For me, my HDTV doesn't have a VGA connector so instead I have to use a VGA->Y/Pb/Pr (component) transcoder. Using one of these transcoders provides a signal cleaner than any VGA out I've ever seen plus it allows me to use HD resolutions.


I don't recommend using a computer as a primary source in a home theater, but having a PC in the mix can be quite useful. Being able to control an entire home theater, being able to play mp3s and being able to play mame on a large tv make pretty compelling reason to throw a CPU into the cabinet. The AVSForum - HTPC (Home Theater PC) forum has many people who have a PC connected for various reasons.

Computer as part of Home Theater

[ackthpt]

Yeah, that would work... buy $5,000 in audio gear, nice monitor, couple La-Z-Boys to watch it in. Then listen to the fans whining away in your PC.

There's a good article, a while back, about quieting down your hotrod. But I'd tend toward just cutting that umbilical cord and having seperate DVD's for the computer and for the Home Entertainment Megaplex.

Biggest driver of trend around my shack is "isn't more bother to deal with."

Re:Computer as part of Home Theater

[ChazeFroy]

By the time you spend large amounts of money on your new computer to act as a home theater, you could have had a lot better A/V equipment with less money.

I'd rather have a Sony 36" Wega with a decent surround-sound system for $2500 than a beefy computer with a 21" monitor.

Re:Computer as part of Home Theater

[NeMon'ess]

What about the fact that if you spent all of that $2500, you'd have no computer at all? You really would go without a computer entirely? I think people are taking their relatively fast new or newish machines, and adding on to them, or buying them with the plan being all-in-one.

we're in a transitional phase...

[turbine216]

I think a lot of people are bringing their computer to the home theater in the family or media room and converging it that way.

You're right about that, but I think that this merely marks a transitional period between the "multimedia pc" era (started about 7 years ago) and the "wired home" era (3 years down the road?). Eventually, I think what we'll see is more of a decentralized structure in the home PC area. We're already seeing it today, with wireless e-mail terminals and MP3 audio components for home stereos (a la the RIO Receiver and its bretheren). Look for more integrated versions of these in the future (i.e. wall-mounted touchscreen panels, linked to a file server that pipes MP3 music to any single room in the house).

Not very insightful

[Rupert]

I stopped reading when the author started talking wbout integrating the telephone with a home computer. I know a number of people who tried this years ago, but all are now using standalone answering machines or telco answering services. It seems to me that the reliability of PCs has actually gone down since then. I can't imagine changing something that just works, to something that often doesn't, for some nebulous benefit of integration.

Re:Not very insightful

[JoeShmoe]

I know what you are talking about. Compaq Presario computer came with the same kind of stripped down answering machine software. I never met anyone who actually used it.

But the idea isn't a bad one. I personally think it is a great idea. Answering machines are a pain in the ass to program, have the crappiest recording quality, store abismally short messages (unless you want to go back to the 80's and get tape) and are pretty darn insecure (two digit security codes? C'mon, that takes under an hour to wardial).

Here's why it's never caught on:

1) Most family types don't want to leave their computers on. We power users and techies are used to having everything running 24/7. At most we'll put our monitors to sleep. We either don't care about power savings or we have an overriding need to be able to access the box without some silly remote power-on device. But this is not how Mom/Dad/Grandma/Grandpa view a computer. They turn the darn thing on and off a hundred times in the day. So the idea of leaving it on just to answer the phones is a contradicting idea to them.

2) There's never been a home operating system that could stay up long enough for the function to work. Cheap 95/98/ME OS plus cheap voicemail software plus cheap winmodem means the only messages you get are written on a bright blue screen. But now there is XP, which is at least a passing attempt at a stable platform. Now if they just get some software to run as a service (IE, sitting there quietly in the system tray where it is unlikely to be closed) then perhaps home users will see the value in it.

I like it because the next step is to merge in VoIP services or videoconferencing or other power features. If we can get a large base of people using to thinking of their computers as telephony devices we can hopefully open a market for some real digital phone services.

Not to mention, it gets people adjusted to the idea of having a home server, which I think every home needs. If you leave it on all the time for answer machine functions it isn't a stretch to add other funtions like media/music server or security/webcam monitor or light/appliance controller.

- JoeShmoe

.

Re:Not very insightful

[MrResistor]

Compaq Presario computer came with the same kind of stripped down answering machine software. I never met anyone who actually used it.

I've tried a few telephony packages, and they have all sucked. The first was whatever came with my dad's computer (Acer Pentium 100, should give you an idea of the time frame) which was real crap. All it had to offer was a bunch of "wacky" prerecorded greetings, basically the same stuff being sold on late-night TV commercials at the time (the 30 second spots, not the spiffy paid programs). Then we tried WinFax Pro (7.0 I think) and it sucked too. It was difficult to configure and not very reliable. It was always confusing voice and fax calls. As an added bonus, it sent the fax handshake before the voice greeting. I'm sure you can imagine how much my Grandmother liked that!

Probably the biggest problem, though, was that with only 1GB HDDs there wasn't that much room for the messages, especially since they were all being recorded at stereo CD quality (roughly 10MB/minute)! Not really an issue these days, especially if the software compressed the messages to MP3 or something.

Anyway, I tried a few of the internet telephony packages when that started up. My conclusion is that there's a pretty good reason you don't hear much about that anymore. I couldn't actually get any of them to work.

The PC entertainment system has interested me for a while, but the remote control problem is definately a barrier, as well as boot time (although since the local power company killed our TV and we've inherited my in-laws old one, I'm not sure it would be that noticable). Of course, as I got older the realization that my life doesn't really require a 24/7 soundtrack crept in and my MP3 collection has seen a lot less use, so the appeal is somewhat diminished. I still like the home theater aspect, though, particularly with a high-res projector. It never occured to me to care about TV res until I got a job testing professional digital video equipment. Full res HDTV is really jaw-dropping.

Hmm... kinda strayed from my point, but I guess that just means I only have to post once on this topic :)

Re:Not very insightful

[renehollan]

Not to mention, it gets people adjusted to the idea of having a home server, which I think every home needs. If you leave it on all the time for answer machine functions it isn't a stretch to add other funtions like media/music server or security/webcam monitor or light/appliance controller.

Bingo!

Until people have a need/use for a home server, 24/7 applications (like answering machine, possibly alarm system, home control, etc.) aren't going to happen. Of course, there is no need for a home server if there are no apps to run on it 24/7 so you have a chicken and egg problem... what is the "killer app" for the home server?

email

The thought of connecting and polling some remote POP/IMAP/whatever server for email periodically sucks: I (or some application) wants to know I have email the instant it is delivered to my mailbox. This is kind of a pain with a dial-up connection (and keeping it up is likely a violation of the terms of service unless you have a dedicated connection), but very easy to do if you have a cable or DSL connection. One of the first things I did when I got my DSL connection was configure my PC to sink email for my domain (yes, I have a remote backup MX; no, I do not relay) and adjust my DNS records accordingly. This humble P200 PC will soon be relegated to the headend where it will serve as an email/media server.

Of course, an answering machine is little more than a repository for email with a voice attachment in disguise, so, with the right modem, this becomes a slam dunk. Remote monitoring of the house (sensors, webcams, etc.) is the next logical step. While we're at it, might as well provide remote ssh-tunneled access to that email and voice mail.

This is just the start, really. For example, why do TiVo and ReplayTV need hard disks? Shouldn't they just stream to local home storage (perhaps encrypting the content to keep the MPAA sharks at bay, not that I'd like this)? I see a potential revival of "push" technology services, when the possibility of caching, i.e. time-shifting, content becomes the norm.

Hard drives are noisy, and frankly computers are ugly in a family/livingroom setting. It might be reasonable for streamed media playback devices to accept local CD, DVD, or other media, but it makes little sense for them to cache locally -- cache on the home server. With less as opposed to more integration in such devices, planned obsolescence becomes easier: you aren't throwing out a whole computer when you upgrade an essentially integrated component. A plus: storage becomes independent of content -- you grow storage as you want.

FILTH

[LazyDawg]

The trend in home computing for the past ten years has been and will continue to be away from the WIMP interface and towards the FILTH interface.

The desktop metaphor of Windows, Icons, Menus and Programs was nice for quite some time, and does have some advantages over the console (sometimes,) but it still left too much of the work to the user.

Forms, Images, Links, Text and Hypermedia interfaces let you treat the system you're handling like a web page. These are already all around us, in web pages, some authoring tools, etc. Rather than worrying about menus full of cryptic commands and window after window that you have to cycle through, imagine navigating the OS or filesystem as if it were a web site, perhaps with a WYSIWYG text editor so people can once again "turn it on and write."

The majority of users have a hard time cycling windows, understanding the difference between closing an application and quitting it, etc. They also tend to only want web, email and word processing. Games and specialty applications can come later, but you won't see them running in a window floating around above the FILTH much.

Re:FILTH

[PCM2]

The majority of users have a hard time ... understanding the difference between closing an application and quitting it

And they're not alone. What, pray tell, would that difference be?

Well I know that Mac OS X, for one, has this awesome feature where you can close every single window of the foremost application (say, for example, the application called System Preferences) and it keeps running until you explicitly quit it with a Command-Q. It's another Apple first -- they've managed to completely separate the functions of quitting an application and closing it. No more worries about accidentally quitting out of System Preference there! And god forbid you can't keep a TextEdit process running at all times...

Re:FILTH

[Graff]

Well I know that Mac OS X, for one, has this awesome feature where you can close every single window of the foremost application (say, for example, the application called System Preferences) and it keeps running until you explicitly quit it with a Command-Q.

First of all, this is not new with MacOS X. This has been true of just about any application on a Mac, except the occasional few which buck the trend or have a need to quit when no windows are open.

Second, it really doesn't matter if you have none or a dozen applications sitting in the background on MacOS X. The operating system only assigns processor time to those applications actually performing work, and it pages out the memory used by idle programs if the memory is needed elsewhere. The net effect is that the idle processes have virtually no effect on taking up system resources, so who cares if they are still running?

Third, the paradigm of the MacOS is not document-centered, it is application-centered. This can be a very good thing when you are working with multiple documents, as only one instance of a program needs to be opened for multiple documents. This results in less memory being used, more efficient use of processor time, less chance of clashes over just which instance controls a particular file or service. Also, just because you close a window it does not mean that you are finished working with the program. There are many times when I'll close a window, then create another to work on a new document. If I had to re-run the program every time I wanted to do this I would waste a lot of time waiting for the program to start up.

Lastly, in the MacOS it is up to the programmer to determine if his program should quit when there are no more open windows. The developer should keep track of how many open windows there are and if none are open, either keep the application running or quit. There are some applications which do this, but it is decided on a case-by-case basis - as it should be.

Most home theater installers are clueless...

[S. Allen]

...about computer technology. When I was re-doing a basement as a home theater, just about every installer/dealer that I spoke to was either completely ignorant of the state of computer technology and/or dismissed it outright. The stuff you buy in AV stores is pretty much identical to the stuff you bought 15 years ago. Control: IR! Where's the serial port or LAN hookup? Modularity? Zip or proprietary. C'mon.

And yet no decent cases...

[Rob Parkhill]

You would think that with the interest of using a PC as a home theatre component that there would be a lot more choice in the market for a decent looking PC case!

I mean seriously, there is maybe 2 PC cases on the market that will take standard PC compnents and looks like it actually belongs in your A/V cabinet. And these cases tend to be in the $250+ range, which is nuts for just a case.

A PC w/ an HDTV tuner card, optical sound output, a DVD drive, a software line doubler/tripler/quadrupler, and a fast network connection (and gobs of sound-deadening material of course!)is a great thing to have in your home theatre, but it sure sticks out like a sore thumb!

Re:Not very insightful - Already there

[KarmaBlackballed]

All our entertainment devices are becoming computers. DVD players, CD players, Tivo, and high-end TVs come to mind. Look for a microprocessor or two inside and you will find them. There are too many examples and new ones adding every year.

The computer already snuck into the living room and we did not notice.

Home Theater PCs are catching on...

[sdo1]

If this discussion forum is any indication, there are a lot of people building Home Theater PCs.

I recently put one together to co-exist with my home theater setup in the living room. A low end machine... 800 MHz Duron, 32MB Radeon, Hauppauge WinTV card (for video capture), 512MB ram, 80G HDD... the whole thing set me back about $700. I painted the case and all front panels black... it fits in quite nicely with the rest of my stereo.

With that system I can now capture video, compress it to mpeg1 (or mpeg2) for burning onto VCD and/or SVCD. I'm copying many of my most played CDs over to it, so I'll have an audio jukebox. I can play non region 1 DVDs. I can read /. on my TV. I can listen to internet radio stations. Pretty much anything I could do before on my office PC, I can do here... but now it's intergrated with my Home Theater.

We had a holiday party last week, so I ripped all of our holiday CDs, downloaded some other songs, recorded some of the "seasonal" music channel on the satellite, created a playlist, and threw it into random mode... and all day the thing happily churned out Christmas music from a fairly large library.

Money well spent so far...

-S

What's kludgy about remotes?

[roystgnr]

A friend of mine had a computer hooked up to receiver (and TV, for onscreen xmms display) for mp3 playback. He gave it one of the modes on his all-in-one remote, installed the IR control module for xmms, and just let it run constantly. He could switch the TV and/or the audio over to the computer at any time, and control all the MP3 playing functions from one of the modes on the remote.

What's the problem with that? It's not like the remote controlled his DVD player perfectly, then screamed "I'm a kludge!" whenever he used it on MP3s.

(he used 320kbit mp3 files and a sound card with digital output, BTW; the sound really wasn't distinguishable from a CD jukebox)

Buy a can of spray paint!

[sdo1]

I put together a HTPC system and I too was frustrated by the lack of black PC cases for reasonable $$$. Instead I bought a nice Antec case for about $60 and a can a black semi-gloss spray paint for about $3. Remove the buttons and clear plastic pieces, clean with grease and wax remover, scuff with a scotchbrite pad, and paint. It's also pretty easy to take the bulkheads off of floppy drives and CD/DVD rom drives to paint those as well.

What I ended up with was a surprisingly good looking black case that goes extremely well with the rest of my equipment.

Anyone capable of putting together a computer from scratch really should be able to paint one as well. It's amazingly easy.

-S

Less system administration

[Junks Jerzey]

In all seriousness--and I'm a programmer, not a luddite--I'd trade 50% computing power for something that didn't give me fits every few months or so. Every time I have to upgrade something, be it under Linux or Windows, it kills a couple of evenings and involves numerous trips to the store. "Okay, I just bought a new video card because Game X doesn't work with my old one, but then Game Y doesn't work with the new one." Or having to constantly upgrade drivers and worrying that one upgrade might cascade into a whole series of them.

No one has to do this kind of thing with their Palm, cell phone, or DVD player. I'd happily be behind the times in the coming years if I could buy the equivalent of an Atari 800 or Commodore 64 with the capabilities of, say, a bottom line Athlon. Seriously. People were mining the capabilities of the C64 for ten years, and we're talking about something with 500 times the raw capability.

Home Entertainment PC's are nothing new

[PbHead]

I know of plenty Home Entertainment PC's. When I was still in college, I needed a new computer, but a TV/VCR would have been nice to have also. Instead of getting a moderate PC and some home entertainment, I decided to spend all I could on my new PC and try to combine the two. Keep in mind it was 1996 and the tech was'nt as good as it is now. CD-Burners were still concidered new-wave stuff and TV capable video cards were nowhere near as abundant.

I put together a P233 with a 17" Monitor and Home Stereo Speakers driven off a small 40 Watt Car Audio Amp that was powered from the 12 Volt leads on my computer Power Supply (Some small Capacitor Mods needed for cleanliness).
This Unit served as my Computer, Internet Surfer, CD/Wav/MP3 Player, TV, Video Recorder (athough space was real tight if you wanted more than one show), and most importantly my Gaming Machine. After I got a VCR, It would play movies as well as my new Play Station. It looked better than a TV in fullscreen mode, and sounded great. It was more than enough to satisfy a geek cramped in a little pad, and impressed all my friends that came to visit and play Tekken.

There are many good and bad points to having a setup like this though. For a single guy in school its great, but any more than that would require more than one PC. (IE. Woman wants TV, I want Web.)
I now have an actual Entertainment center (Mostly for the Woman) and two Entertainment PCs. When I decided I needed more processing power, I designed my new unit with all the same features. It's a bit better of course with a 19" Monitor, DVD-Rom, better video in/out, and an 80 Watt amp, but the idea is the same.

As for the old 233, I upgraded it to a 450 and gave it some other new equipment. Now it's known as the bedroom box. Perfect for TV in bed, watching movies, Musical Alarm Clock, and checking slashdot before coffee.

As for the market on this idea, the only thing to say is slow. I work at Local PC sales and repair shop and I suggested building Home Entertainment PCs as part of our sales line. I could make them for a reasonable price, but the salesmen just could'nt move them out very well. Most people were not intrested because they already have a nice Entertainment Center. They want a PC at a good price and thats it. As to be expected, the only people that wanted our HEPCs was the soon to be college student who was going to be stuck in the dorms for a couple years, a few geeks that wanted everything and more, and a few old guys that found them perfect for hiding in their shop/study/office away from the wife. The rest of the market just was'nt ready.

If time allows, maybe I'll recap this post on TQY3, with some pictures and better descriptions of my experience with HEPC's.

Re:Timeline

[Dyolf Knip]

I'm planning out the A/V network to run alongside the ethernet one. It'd basically end up with the DVD on channel 1, MP3/DivX/VCD's from the dedicated media computer on 2, the hacked satellite on 3, my work computer screen on 4 (goes nicely with the wireless keyboard and mouse!), the surveillance camera outside the front door on 5 (hmmm, ThinkGeek sells remote controlled deadbolts), etc, etc. Run that coax line to all the rooms and you can show whatever you want on any TV. The expensive part is the equipment that merges the RCA A/V lines onto the coax. But nearly all of it could be controlled from a single universal remote and some inventive programming.

Next goal is to try and put the landline phone and my cellphone into the mix.