Slashdot Mirror
Computer Expectations of Today, and a Decade Hence?
Luciq asks: "The other day I was cleaning out my closet and started reminiscing about all the good times I had with my 33Mhz 486DX. I got the machine 10 years ago just as the first Pentiums were coming out. With a 33Mhz processor, 212MB hard drive and a whopping 8MB of RAM, I could surf the net at 2400 baud, manipulate photos and even play games with full-screen video like The Seventh Guest. Today I use an Athlon XP 2400, 80GB HD, 512MB [not 512K!] RAM. While I can do some neat things with it, I must say that it's fallen short of the wonderous expectations I had for such a system in 1993 (no immersive VR?, no seamless voice recognition?). What expectations did you have for today's PC, 10 years ago and how does the reality match up? What do you expect from computing, 10 years from now?"
A stable, secure, low-cruft OS.
Maybe in the next ten years.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
10 years ago I thought about how a computer was still like a keyboard with a TV (and a mouse). I expected better input technologies. Why do I have to move the mouse pointer with my hand? Why can't I guide it with my eyes, just looking around the screen and moving the pointer? Why are input devices so far behind anything else?
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
1. Be really small and run on almost no power. (Screw 70 Watt processors, gimme something i can implant!) 2. Automatically negotiate ad hoc networks with passersby, immediately establishing whether or not they are similar or dissimilar to you based on MP3 collections, web bookmarks, etc. 3. Thereby facilitating a new form of social selection in humans, whereby our computers automatically figure out whether we are meant to fall in love, be friends, etc.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
Life will start looking more like it did in the middle of the last century, as computers disappear from sight and banal old devices start containing little bits of a massively distributed system.
I won't miss sitting at a keyboard and staring fixedly at a monitor, that's for sure.
...90% of hardware improvements are essentially wasted by programmer inefficiency.
Look at those amazing 4K demos that people did (and stll do) for DOS. People are doing wild stuff here-- things like real-time pseudo-3D rendering, fractals, you name it-- all inside of 4 kilobytes of code. And most of these demos will run just as well on a '286 or (at most) '386 than today's space-heater chips.
Contiki is a lovely example of what can be done with efficient coding. In my experience, this sort of efficiency is NEVER achieved today in "commercial" projects or even in OSS/FS code-- people never even come close. The only areas of computing which have seen significant improvements (I don't just mean "more widgets" or "better interfaces" (the latter has nothing to do with hardware improvements, so don't even mention it)) in recent years have been:
* Gaming (perhaps the only area where efficiency is even SOMEWHAT appreciated, as it leads to higher FPS)
* Rendering (ditto)
* Real-time scientific simulations
In 1980, I could flip on an Apple II and have a usable prompt inside of a second or two. Nowadays, even with a screamin' P4 or Duron will get you a 30-second startup time-- if you're lucky. That's just to boot up the OS. Wanna start a word processor? That'll take even longer.
If you want to get a sense of what MY expectations were that were shattered, go grab a good Apple II emulator and some appropriate software and fire the emulator up. Make sure that it's running at the full possible speed-- not "compatible" speed (which is 1.02MHz, if I remember correctly). Look at how fast stuff runs... and that's in emulation. Sure, there's no fancy GUI, there's no clippy, whatever you think "modern" OSes have to have... but the point is that even in emulation, old stuff runs REALLY, REALLY FAST. If the same mentality of "efficiency is everything" that was necessary during the days of limited hardware power was voluntarily adopted today... well... imagine Windows XP starting up in one second (and not crashing). Imagine being able to swap cool new games on floppy disks. Imagine most games being distributed on Mini CDs, even those with lots of videos and speech, since a full (650-700MB) CD would be overkill for them.
Then wake up and realize it's time to go buy some more RAM again... ho hum...BillG just raised the bar on hardware requirements. Back to the treadmill we go...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
from my experience, computer technology is mostly driven by computer games.
anyone can still type up a letter using an old computer. science/research are adapting to what's currently available, rather than creating the needs, but i might be wrong.
on the other hand, not many game developers are still writing games for the current computers, instead, manufacturers are trying to come out with something so that their consumers can finally play GTA3 smoothly.
so a question to answer your question - what do you expect to see in computer games in the future.
I got my first computer when I went to college (1995). I shelled out a ton for it, too. $3000 for a Pentium 133, 32MB RAM, you know the story...
I sit here, typing code on a 2400+ XP, 512Mb RAM and you know, the saddest part is that I'm still the slowest component of the computer. Sure, code compiles faster, but that's only a few moments compared to the hours I spend hitting keys.
It seems that hardware is just keeping up with the software that keeps bogging it down. Sure, my windows desktop is a '32-bit' blue rather than that sad '256 colors' blue. It's still the default color.
I wished that we had truly-emmersive 3D desktops. The kind where you can stack desktops on top of each other and you could control the mouse in 3 dimensions.
I wished that messages from the computer would be synthesized in a super-sexy voice. I wanted a holographic (Max Headroom-ish) interface that I could talk to. I wanted hot-swappable PCI devices.
I remember voice-recognition was just on the verge of becoming commonplace. I think it still is. Perhaps a vapor-ware award is in order...
I disagree with the common case that "all games today are eye candy and the real innovation was in the 80's etc."
Of course, there are games that are manufacturered purely to capitalize on a market. Such as games based on movies and tv shows (who wants to be a millionaire rings a bell). However, there are games out there that are breath-taking in an eye candy sense and also in a game sense.
For example, Quake III Arena might be remembered for it's graphics but it also brought multi player internet gaming to a whole new level.
Half life may be a similar concept but it has really brought game hacking and modifications forward. Maybe not truely novel concepts (quakeI had internet play and ID was allowing users to hack their games for a while) but they really created their own cult followings and people play those games for hours just as people played the paralax scrolling games of the late 80's early 90's for hours too.
What about GTA and the ever so popular vice city? I think vice city is probably THE perfect game (for me anyway). It combines so many different types of games into one: role playing, fighting, racing, mission based, shoot-em-up, business etc. Plus it brings you into this whole virtual culture and world where every detail from the people on the side walks to the radio stations are considered. Making it more of an interactive movie that sucks you in and keeps you there.
How about The Sims? Another novel concept. My wife still plays that game for hours at a time. She's got her own little neighbourhood kicking where she can control everything and build up her characters etc. What do you call that kind of game? Role playing? Simulation? I'm not so sure. I definitely don't remember any games in the 80's and early 90's having a game concept like that.
The fact is that gaming is just like any other business. The people who are there to capitalize on it want to market proven products that aren't so risk based. So you do get a lot of games comming out that just seem to be the same as last month's big eye candy. You see this in movies and music and television too. But don't neglect the games that do bring new concepts forward. They're there, you just have to notice them.
- Garett
Here is my pre-emptive response to all of the pro-status-quo zealots (yes, the most annoying sort of all, contrary to a recent poll).
Let's say you had a time machine. (Let's say it was built out of a DeLorean, just for fun's sakes.)
So you fire up your DMC chariot, head back to 1965, and pick up some computer scientists.
You then take them back to the present and start showing them things.
After they get past the whole "You elected RONALD REAGAN President!?" bit, they'll probably faint dead away when you tell them about modern computers. "WHAT? The system REQUIRES 64MB of memory to boot!!!??? And 128MB is recommended!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?" At this point, they would probably punch you in the face, and tell you how much of a failure the modern computer world is (by virtue of being the most prodigious waste of perfectly good supercomputing hardware conceivable... short of using all the world's hardware to render an animated video of Britney Spears's assets bouncing... using a renderer written in BASIC, of course.)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Writing very complex software means that you can't write it in Assembly and hope to be done in the next 10 years. Sorry to burst your bubble.
...90% of hardware improvements are essentially wasted by programmer inefficiency.
.Net. Byte code/virtual machines eliminate the need to port our application 50 times, but in trade we give up a whole bunch of speed. If speed doesn't matter, it's all upside.
While this may be true, it's largely done on purpose.
Professional programmers are in the business of making tradeoffs: time versus space, speed of execution versus speed of development, etc.
While it's true that a crack team of assembly programmers could probably rewrite the whole of MS Office for optimum performance, chances are:
1) It would take them years.
2) Users would hardly notice a difference ("Wow, the about box comes up in 100 ms instead of 500!")
3) The code would be impossible to maintain.
Nowadays, professional programmers who are working on performance-critial software tend to write first and optimize second (after they profile the code to determine where 'hotspots' are).
Just look at 'write-once-run-anyware' languages like Java or
10 years ago I was fiddling with autoexec.bat and config.sys files so I could play some game I just bought from Babbage's. Using your computer as an entrainment device, aside from gaming never went beyond some .mod or .wav file, and short video clips -- usually as filler in some "multimedia' game.
Things have gotten bigger, but not necessarily better. Now instead of well-thought out games, there's a ton of 3d animation and filler. Instead of the fun conversations on IRC and BBS's, there's spam filled usenet and E-Mail.
Ease of use hasn't drastically occurred -- because face it, nerds (who develop software) always turned their noses up at "the easy way" of doing things. Which is why the kids with Macs and Amigas got made fun of. The real thing the nerds were hating in the GUI was the inability to get under the hood.
10 years ago I couldn't have imagined downloading full music files and movies so easily, or creating your own with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment. Even getting your own home network going is insanely cheap nowadays.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm pretty happy with how things have gone. What I didn't anticipate was how much Microsoft would totally dominate, and ruin computing. If I could have seen that then, maybe I would have bought a Mac in 1993, not another PC. Apple has flaws, but I just can't see them contaminating the Internet the same way Windows users and Microsoft has.
I'm happy to see the open source movement making waves, and 10 years ago I wouldn't have imagined a free OS could provide so many options. Nowadays your average cable modem provides the kind of bandwidth many universities had . . . I never would've imagined that 10 years ago.
Of course, the things I was doing in 1993 (using IRC to chat, looking at web pages, sending E-Mails), I'm still doing now. Except, with IE's non-compliance to standards and Windows viruses, it's actually worse than it was 10 years ago.
Saying all that, I love what Linux and BSDs offer for free alternatives -- a few of my computers are running Linux right now. As far as being completely satisfied though, OS X is exactly what I wanted in a computer 10 years ago. It's easy enough to deal with, stable, and I can get tinker with UNIX whenever I need to. I really became disinterested in computers from 95-98 or so; OS X is what made me buy a few programming books and get back into things though.
What sucks in 2003 is Microsoft and people not following standards on the web. DRM applies here too. A lot of really great things have happened in 10 years, what's held them back is MS dominance.
I think they would be rather amazed at the power of the computers themselves. Show them that we can store 2 trillion bits of data on something thats about the size of a paperback book. Oh yeah, and it only costs about $200 too. However, they may not be so impressed when they discover we use it mostly to store vast quantities of bad music, bad movies, and porn. Oh well.
Or the processors that run at 2 billion cycles per second that cost less than $100. It would blow them away.
You can tell them, "Sure, the thing won't boot with less than 64MB of memory, but who cares when that much memory costs $15?" Oh course they will probably say that's our problem - what incentive do we have to elimate bloat when it's so much cheaper to throw more hardware at a problem?
BTW, be sure to tell them to put all their money into the stock of a small company named "Microsoft" in the early 1980's, and that around 1999 you'll be expecting a nice check in the mail.
grib.
maybe
Although hardware speeds have increased a 100 fold software has not kept up with it, instead software has become bloated and slow. Windows still takes a minute or longer to load, applications still crash and overall realibilty still has not improved.
What expectations did you have for today's PC, 10 years ago and how does the reality match up?
Why not step into the ol' time machine, aka Google Groups' Usenet archive? The thread What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have? is a fascinating read (really -- I recommend reading every post).
I noticed a few common thoughts throught the thread that didn't pan out: Multiprocessor desktops becoming commonplace. The demise of X86. Also on a whole people's estimates on HD space were very conservative. People predicted ridiculous resolutions for video.
Some people were right on the money though: 1GHz processors, 512MB RAM, and permanent connections to the 'net.
This is one of the best finds I've come across on ye olde Usenet.
Many of you expect so much, but have no idea how hard it is/was to create...
These billion-transistor CPU's that people use every day go unnoticed. Do you know how much genious was poured into it's creation?
And you go on to ask for voice recognition and perfect speech generation? Why not perfect AI while you're at it?
Be greatful and don't ask for much... until you go out and contribute to the development of this technology you ask for then you have not right to complain when you don't get it.
Did anyone see the DMCA or RIAA legal pack of business coming ten years from now? Just think of what life in the future will be like post-resolution-of-said-issues. Orrin Hatch wants to crack our cases with destructive virus files...what will electronic entertainment of the future be like?
Cold War II: The Race between Digital Rights and Hackers.
First, the bad news... computing in the large...
I generally see less and less interest in formal methods, formal design, disciplined approaches to software construction (by which I am referring to the use and adherence to serious models, not just fodder for coffeehouse discussions). Small, proven O/S kernels, supertight code, and emphasis on requirements analysis as the sorts of things that make for well-built and defined systems are costly, and just don't sell well in a commercial market which demands and receives revenue and, increasingly, waivers from liability for bad software products. Increasing "offshoring" of software development projects won't help keeping the gap between systems-as-intended and systems-as-developed issues from arising.
Organizations will lean on, and people will continue to accept descriptions of software quality where software testing is emphasized, before software development methodology or rigor.
Many more large and complex systems will be developed. Their sizes (and complexity of interactions) will outpace the ability of the implementation of their development models to support final code products that meet the required security needs of the public, or of customers. Security problems will get worse before they get better.
And in the small...
The good news? Consumer appliances.
You will be able to carry on a thumbnail chip (or, probably, through a more convenient mechanism, access to your personal material of interest. Wifi-type-access back through VPNs to your data should be readily available. This isn't too far from available now...within some limits...) all the music, photos, and items of personal interest that you would collect and store. I would like to have some confidence that this won't be ruined by digital rights management implementation and supporting legislation, but time will tell. I suspect workarounds will exist to circumvent most DRM systems that will come along. Oh yea, store any of that on a server owned by someone else, and you may end up giving up copyrights and more...Privacy rights and related issues over information you store on anyone else's system will get worse before it gets better.
Anyway, some thoughts...
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
I also remember getting a machine about 10 years ago, and I remember that "the future" was all about voice recognition, automation, crazy multimedia at home, etc. It all seemed very exciting to me back then, and for the most part feels kinda "blah" now that we're here.
/. readers fit here). There are more possibilities in software, hardware, networking, and overall usability then there were 10 years ago, but it's pretty much only the power users who really a) understand them, and b) make direct use of them. For the mainstream users, the computing experience is largely unchanged: email, websites, IM, store your digital photos (this last one may be stretching it for the average user).
/. readers. It took my dad about 10 years to figure out that he didn't have to double-click everything with the mouse (including web pages) in order to open it. And what about our grandparents?
So where's "here"? My summary of where we are today consists of a several things. First, I think there's a bigger divergence between the computing experience of a mainstream user vs. the computing experience of a power user (probably most of
While I always enjoy reading about Microsoft's latest fumble, I think they've been *trying* to make computers more specialized so that the user doesn't have to be. All of their Auto Correct features, assistant paper clip thingies, fully retarded (and grossly insecure) scriptability of every goddam product, and various other "features" that end up annoying the hell out of most of us are in fact a solid attempt to make the experience of using a computer more enjoyable for somebody like my mother. In fact, most of our mothers (and fathers) could probably do well to have a helluva lot of assistance using a computer, while most of us probably disable all of that in favor of more direct control. Keep in mind the population spread - there are way more baby boomers using computers than there are
So for the future, while I would *like* to see all kinds of cool things that would appeal to our geekiness, I'm predicting a slow, plodding future of more of the same - increased divergence between the computing experiences of regular and power users, and way more AutoBullshit and assistance features for the average home user.
Innovation is a funny thing. There's only so much of it that can happen at any one time. That's because there are two finite resources required for it to happen: attention and money. In other words, someone needs to care enough about something to spend time thinking about ways to do it better, and then someone needs to care enough about those new ideas to pay to turn them into realities.
The reason there has been practically no innovation on the desktop in the last ten years has been because that span of time -- ten years -- coincides precisely with the span of time the Internet has been in the public consciousness. Ever since Mosaic hit in '93 the vast majority of money and attention that's available in the world has been focused on the Net -- making it better, faster, more reliable and able to support more complex applications. That hasn't left a lot of those resources to support innovations on the desktop -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The first computer I ever connected to the Net, I connected in 1993. It was a 486SX/25 with 8MB of RAM and a whopping 200MB (yes, MB) hard drive. It ran Windows (version 3.1), Office, and some games.
Today I have a Duron 1200 with 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. It runs Windows (2000), Office, and some games... and a whole boatload of applications (Web browser, graphical IMAP mail client, IM programs, P2P, etc.) that I could not even have imagined in 1992. And, generally speaking, I'm happy with that -- those things are more useful to me than all the things we thought were going to be huge back in 1993 (immersive VR, CD-ROM encyclopedias, etc.) would have been.
So, in short, there's been plenty of innovation -- it's just been in a different direction than you (or I) were expecting.
Read my blog.
...is that computers still aren't the same as televisions: You hit the power button and it's just "there". Sure, we've got suspend and standby and XP boots faster, but it's still a few tens of seconds before the desktop is up and running. Even BeOS wasn't up instantly. Until this happens, PCs will not be where *I* expect them to be by now. The PC should be an appliance by now, and it really isn't.
Un-news