Slashdot Mirror
At the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference
downix writes "At Toms Hardware they're running an article where they discuss the next-generation Windows graphics system. The big part of the scoop, it's being done via DirectX. Have to validate those 2Ghz CPU's and GPU's that need their own nuclear power plant to run somehow." Some other interesting things there - quiet PCs, more about the Oqo, etc.
"What's next to drive people to upgrading?"
Two words: interactive porn.
That alone will justify the graphics, sound and bandwidth growth we've seen. c'mon, you know it's coming.
(ooh, sorry, didn't mean the pun.)
Nothing, and that's the beauty of MS's strategy. Windows releases are always endorsed by celebrities, big promo events, etc etc (didn't 'The Rock' help plug Windows XP?). When Microsoft, the OS company, releases a new version or updates their old products, everyone has to have it...regardless of how well their old systems (whether that's hardware or software) work to fit their needs.
Effective marketing, goddman them all.
Well, I think what's happening is companies are tired of seeing office machines being given 3-4 year old graphics cards! :) Most machines for the office don't need (or so someone says) a nice graphics card so now office workers put up with slower graphics because they have a Riva or something to that effect in thier machine. Used to be there was not much difference in a office machine and a home machine. Not anymore. I think Nvidia would like to lower the price of their high end but can't because there are many (I am one of those!) who don't see the point in buying thier firebreather when a Geforce 2 MX works just fine for about 95 percent of the people....even some games can be played just fine on a 2 MX. No Microsoft is feeling the pressure from the hardware folks because for some reason, they can't convince OEMS to use thier firebreathing Geforce and P4 chips in machines that are sold to grandma's (many more grandma's then hardcore gamers). If they could sell more of those, then they don't have to charge 300+ for one of those nice cards. If the OS used it more, then people would be forced to go get that new graphics card. The demand would be up and the price would take a plunge. It's ALL about eyecandy. Users dig it! (I don't need it all of the time, but I dig it too if it can look good and be fast!)
Gorkman
Yeah, because at less than .10 cent per *kilo*watt hour and, umm, 24*30, uhh, 720 hours per month, let's see, err, that's 216000 wats used, max, AKA 216 kilowatts, well, uhh. Hmph. That's a whopping 21.6 cents per month. Good gracious, time to get that second job working nights, or maybe just recycle a few aluminum cans to finance such an astronomical power bill. :)
:)
average cost of electricity in US as of 1999
That said, I've got about 5 computers and matching monitors (there's where the power's eaten up) running 24x7, and totally understand the desire to keep power use down...
But for every power user tapping his fingers waiting for the compiler, there are a hundred Grandmas typing things into MS Word or reading web pages. Which mean a CPU utilization of about one per cent, since the computer spends most of its time waiting for human input.
Now I know there are already lots of projects to try and tap unused computing power, but it doesn't seem to have gone as far as it could. Imagine something like MOSIX distributed worldwide over the net - so when you run 'make' all sorts of random people you've never met will execute part of the job on their PCs. The protections against sabotage would be quite difficult to work out, but I'm sure it's possible.
What I'm saying is that in the past, there was always a need for faster CPUs in the individual PC. But if networks get faster and more widespread, it might turn out that individual PCs are fast enough and more effort should go into harnessing them together.
Of course, if an efficient global market did develop in computing power, then it might be worth developing faster processors just for that reason, to 'farm' them.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
"Some"? Holy heck, welcome to the problem. I've just built a machine for my brother. An XP 1700+, 256Mb of DDR 2100 and a 64Mb GeForce 2 MX 400 with TV out. We debated hardest on the card. He wanted to go for a GeForce 3 TI to future proof himself. Here's how my reasoning went:
Logic prevailed. Oh, he still wanted the 3 TI, because game mags say it can run at a squillion fps @ 1600x1200x32, but we did manage to establish that the noticable benefit would be zero, because he doesn't have a monitor that can handle that.
I'd advise anyone else thinking of buying a high end graphics card to do this calculation. Unless you've got a 1600x1200 @ 80fps monitor, what the heck do you need a GeForce 3 or 4 TI for? Don't spend money "future proofing": all you're doing is paying a premium on hardware that will be a lot cheaper when you do find yourself needing it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Hey, at least they're making SOME progress. I've got a 10+ year old SGI Indigo2 at home, and it still does smoother 3D than my modern Windows XP box.
Maybe he didn't have the extra 75 dollars? Maybe he DOESN'T play Wolfenstien? There are PLENTY of games out that run fine on the 2MX400. How about Unreal Countrstrike??? It's still popular. So is Q3A. The only reason you could need that big graphics card is so you CAN run games like those and so you CAN spend 50 bucks on that game (instead of doing like I do and wait until they hit the bargin bin). Not everyone has a Slashdot Editors budget for hardware. Also, I can see most everything just fine at 640x480 as well. Sure, I like running the higher resolution as well but the game CAN be played well at 640x480. ALso, for someone who only plays games occasionally, it just costs way to much to buy one of these hot video cards.
Something I think game devlopers have forgotten lately is how to make a game fun. Now it seems all they and the hardcore gamers care about is eye candy. Sure, looking at these things will make your jaw drop, but who care how pretty it is....is it fun? To me, no. The games that center on deathmatching are no fun for me to play occasionally because there are so many players who have more time then I do and thus are much better then I ever will be. I am not saying that they should make it easy to play. I want to be challenged, but to depend on lightening quick reflexes is too much. I respect those who are real good at deathmatches as much as I respect athletes. I also believe there are some people, like myself, who will never be good enough to do well at the game. Just like i will never be as good as Michael Jordan. But to have fun in these games you have to be that good and it feel terrible to get killed every 2 minutes. If I want to feel like that I can just go and try to play basketball. Then I would get the same feeling.
I enjoy games that help you use your brain. Games like Roller Coaster Tycoon and The Sims challenge you to use your brain to be good at them. Quake, Wolfenstien and the upcoming Doom 3 while they would be fun enough to me in one player mode, just would not be fun at all in deathmatching. Sure they do challenge your brain in some ways, but after that, it's mostly quick reflexes and how quick you can move yer stick. Some say games like Starcraft are like this, and they are, to a point, but one can also win with stragtegy. That's where they differ.
Gorkman