Slashdot Mirror
No Need to Upgrade that PC?
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post (free reg.) has an interesting article about a developing trend in the computer retail business: People aren't buying new PCs. Why? Well, no suprise to those who read this, but grandma and Joe Sixpack don't need a screaming new P4 to surf the net and write letters. Are they just figuring this out?"
As Boogaroo, above, pointed out, gamers need to pretty much constantly upgrade. Used to be, developers put a lot of time and effort into making software compact and min spec - friendly. No more. The bigger and more demanding the software, the better the computer you need to run it. Everyone wins. Oh yeah, except the consumer.
Thankfully that's not where everyone's at. My parents need their email, a little word processing, and that's it. And if console games keep getting better (and offering network play), it may finally come to pass that gamers have their console and their word machine and never the twain shall meet.
I'm currently considering a downgrade.
Except for my gaming needs, I'd like a small (physically), extensible, *low-noise* little PC, with a comfortable screen and a decent keyboard.
It seems to me like the low-noise requirement is starting to appeal to more and more people. Hell, else the Via C3 would have been laughed at in *every* review it's gotten.
I'm currently thinking of getting an (otherwise worthless) Epia C3 933MHz box for server duties, provided I can hang my harddrives in there and keep those silent a bit.
Oh, where are you, Transmeta, with halfway decent performance low-noise/heat solutions?
Once you hit 1Ghz you hit the point of diminishing return on CPU's. Unless a hard core gamers or running some high end graphic or simularion software you aren't going to see much difference and Joe Public is seeing it. IMO the main contribitor is software, there is no popular with the masses software that needs that many CPU cycles. Most software is sitting waiting for the user to give it something to do. Then the rest of the computer system memory, buses, cards, and devices are way slower, again a lot idle cycles for the CPU. Intel has noticed this and has said they are going to start focusing more on power usage. Also this is part of the reason for HyperThreading, trying to take advantage of all those idle CPU cycles.
I also see analogies between the computer industry and the auto industry when it developed. At sometime back in the auto's history, probably the 40's or 50's, cars could already travel as fast as most people would ever want to drive. That didn't stop the industry from improving, and I don't think it will stop the computer industry either. We'll start concentrating on safety(security) and design factors, making software safer, easier, and more fun to drive.
But first, economically we somehow need to get out of this funk. As long as what we make is an extra that people can do without(and it always will be that) people won't buy in economically hard times.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I sell Macs for a living. In terms of processing power, for the consumer-targeted lines of products it can reasonably be argued that you get more processing power for your buck with a Wintel machine. However, very few of my potential customers are concerned with such things. I'd say maybe 50-60% even bother asking about what sort of Pentium an 800 Mhz G4 (the CPU in a flat-panel iMac) is equivalent to. Home users care about applications, and about not having to deal with driver conflicts and the Blue Screen of Death. When a potential "switcher" comes into the store, I mention OS X's stability, then start showing the iApps. And that's usually all it takes. :-)
-
For most users, the only killer app for a fast desktop machine is games.
- Now that A-title games cost around $20 million to make, good games have to be high-volume products.
- The game industry is moving to consoles for the high-volume products.
Therefore, games won't be driving the PC industry for much longer. The requirement for a PC is levelling off.What this may mean is the beginning of the PC appliance era. About 80% of PCs are never opened once they leave the factory. They could just as well ship as sealed boxes, with the usual "no user serviceable parts inside" marking. It's already possible to build $400 boxes that will do everything needed for 80% of home and business desktops. That's the future of the PC. Expandable boxes will be a niche market, sold by specialty retailers.
He does still have one excellent point -- No UNIX environment that I know of (definitely no lightweight one) has real, Win2k-level alpha-blending support.
Sure, we've had the pseudo-blended stuff that grabs the root window and alpha-blends it since way before Windows did. But Win2k long ago got real blending (you can see other windows behind the current one), and looking at an XP desktop runnin WinAMP (which alpha-blends into the background when it's not the foreground window), Linux has lost pole position in the flashy-sparklies department. Enlightenment used to put Linux up there, but E17 seems to never be coming out, E16 is old, and no one else wants to do eye candy. Dammit, it was awfully useful to impress potential Linux users...
Furthermore, both GNOME and KDE are fucking bloated and slow. GTK2 has improved a bit, but it's still *far* slower than the blisteringly fast GTK1. Qt has always been slow. My solution is to simply not use either -- gkrellm + sawfish + xbindkeys + a couple of scripts makes for an awfully customizable, flexible environment. But most people don't have that option available when they're moving to Linux. To them, Linux *is* "slower" than Windows from a workstation perspective.
* I'll never willingly give up the remote nature of X, but X is somewhat slower (and has *much* higher latency, thanks to the required context switches during a draw operation) than Windows does.
* Linux may be a tough cookie, but X is quite killable. The other day, I wrote a program that accidently got into a loop and started opening windows like mad. It made the X environment completely unusable and prevented me from using a keyboard/mouse. Fortunately, there was a Windows box nearby and I could log into my machine and kill the offending process remotely, but for certain X tasks, from the point of view of a workstation end user, Linux is significantly more fragile than Windows.
May we never see th