"Levels" of Computers the Future?

RabidMoose writes "Gamespot has an article up talking about a recent interview with Microsofts's Dean Lester about the future of PC gaming (as well as Xbox 2 tidbits). Basically, they're in contact with the big hardare producers about transitioning to a system of tagging pre-made computers with "levels". He provided a hypothetical example that a PC with a "level 5" designation might have a medium processor speed, amount of RAM, and mid-range video card, while a "level 7" PC might have a faster processor, more RAM, and a higher-end video card."

Comments

Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[erick99]

A level system would be bastardized very quickly. There are so many possible permutations of hardware combinations that it would be difficult to even come up with general levels. You would instantly run into, for example, "Level 5 with the video card of a level 8." or "Level 7 but double the ram," ect., etc. You might also end up with "flavors" of a level such as maybe Dell's idea of a Level 5 ends up better than Compaq's. Once again, as I have often had occasion to say with regards to these type of ideas, we have a solution in search of a problem.

-erick

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[DVDAshot]

Here here. Here's a solution. Why don't we just continue to call it what it is. Why does Microsoft feel the need to try to dumb down everything that has to do the PC.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[mOoZik]

The point of levels would be that people would be able to quickly determine which level would be suitable for their task. If there is a standardized convention, if you will, then levels will be similar across the board and not vary wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer. I think it's a good idea, but tough to implement.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[JoeD]

Not to mention that any present level designation would get dated really quickly. Today's level 7 would only qualify as a level 5 in two years.

Unless, of course, they propose to make the level designation open-ended, which means that in 10 years, level 22 would be the midrange.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[RazzleFrog]

This may be taken as a troll but it really is to compete with Apple. Apple long ago learned that some people just want a machine without having to know every spec.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[maximilln]

If there is a standardized convention, if you will, then levels will be similar across the board and not vary wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer

Ah yes. I can see it now. Large companies will be able to shift the blame for bad coding to insufficient hardware. In the clamor for overall product quality the politicians will establish a certification system. With hardware certification will come lockin and subsidy similar to automobile or airplane manufacturers.

Say goodbye to modular cards and customizable desktops. You will take what the industry wants to shove down your throat and you will like it.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[Chess_the_cat]

It's true. Consoles are the same way. Sometimes you want to buy a machine that will just run whatever is out there. If you buy a Gamecube or an iMac you can be pretty sure that whatever you grab off the shelf will run on it. As it stands in the PC market you might overlook a spec or two and then be disappointed in the future because you forgot to check what the standard video card specs were for your machine.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[CrankyFool]

Ooh, I think we may be missing the point.

Think about how some cars are sold with option packages: I couldn't get the parking system I wanted ($300) without getting the GPS system I didn't want ($1200).

So maybe the whole thing here is that you _cannot_ have a Level 3 computer with a Level 8 card -- that it's a bundle, and you have to go with an L8 computer if you want an L8 card even if all you want the L8 desig for is just the card, not the CPU.

Add to that some sort of ability to limit in BIOS what you can use ("this is an L3 computer. It may only have video cards that are 33MHz or slower and 32Mb of less of RAM") and you essentially kill modding of the most moddable (is that a word?) platform around! Then, you don't necessarily need to build an 'XBox' to do one thing and a 'PC' to do another and be afraid people will take the XBox and turn it into a computer -- you just sell an L2 (of a certain form factor) that can't be upgraded.

I hope these are just paranoid delusions ...

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[Anonymous Coward]

Video cards are really a great example. Did you get the FX or the MX. Is it LE, SE, Pro, or Ultra? 64, 128, or 256? AGP 4x, 8X, or PCI?

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[BeerCat]

Most people just don't need the extra power

That's probably true. Some tasks maybe only need level 3, but the marketing droids have convinced the public that they really need level 7 "at minimum"; better go for a level 9 to be safe, or a level 11 for "future proofing".

It's very similar to the "Landmark" benchmark, where processors were given a notional equivalence to an old 80286. Thus, a 25MHz 386DX was IIRC given a Landmark speed of "57MHz" (ie, a '286 would have to run at that speed to be as fast. It got dropped not long after the 486 came out, as the Landmark speeds were heading into 4 figures, when actual speeds were barely into 3.

This system (if it takes off) will go the same way, when people get fed up being told that they need a "level 250" just to browse the web.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[emag]

Even if you don't overlook a spec or two, wait a year, and you'll be disappointed. The difference between PCs and consoles/iMacs (at least in this case), is the difference between a diverse group of vendors constantly developing new technologies (revolutionary or evolutionary) vs single vendors who have a complete lock on the platform, keeping it static for years at a time.

So what happens is, developers keep taking advantage of the latest and greatest video/sound/whatever in the PC world, where your equipment quickly becomes obsolete and the PC you got last Christmas has trouble running the games released this week, while developers for console systems and the like have a strictly-defined set of unchanging hardware (until the next replacement comes out), and so of COURSE everything for console Y or an iMac that you grab off the shelf is guaranteed to run....it's all for (arguably) obsolete hardware...

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[ADRA]

If so, they won't care about the numeric levels any more than they'd care about the detailed specs.

They'll be:

Does it have a monitor?
Does it have internet access?
Does it let me type letters?

They won't be the ones asking if level 5 PC's support playing doom 3 at 1600x1200x32-4xaa-8xans

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[joeljkp]

No, they're not idiots. They either don't care, have better things to do with their time, or feel overwhelmed by it all. You know, like me and quantum physics. Doesn't mean I'm an idiot, just means that I don't know quantum physics.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[fupeg]

That's probably true. Some tasks maybe only need level 3, but the marketing droids have convinced the public that they really need level 7 "at minimum"; better go for a level 9 to be safe, or a level 11 for "future proofing".

Actually, no they haven't, and that's a big problem the industry is focussing on. Most people bought computers around 2000, but a lot haven't since. That's why you see all these heavy handed tactics (especially by Microsoft who makes much of their money off people buying new computers) trying to convince people to upgrade. MS won't patch your IE unless you're on XP. Now they want you to buy a new computer so you can play games. If everybody upgraded every couple of years, then they wouldn't bother with such tactics.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[WormholeFiend]

I don't see much difference between shopping for a car or shopping for a computer...

With both items, you can go in detailed specifics, you can tweak the performance if you have the know-how, you can buy generic products from big name brands, etc.

I don't think that marketers or whoever is behind that "level" initiative should assume that their customers are dumb/ignorant.

I think it's a given that when someone feels the need to buy something that is complex, that person should research the product beforehand and become educated about it.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[drinkypoo]

Ever hear of MPC? It let "multimedia" designers establish a standard below which their software would not work. However this is horribly misguided (the levels, not MPC) because you'd have to have a new set of levels every year.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[0racle]

It does if you had something related to quantum physics sitting on your desk, you used it every day, couldn't live without it (e-mail), bought new things for it and yet actively refused to learn even the simplest things about it.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[Slime-dogg]

As long as places like ASUS, ABIT, MSI, and Chaintech are around, I doubt that this will happen. They seem to take that rebellious attitude in their hardware design: coloring their motherboards, adding bright LED's, using funky fans and heat sinks, and allowing easy overclocking through the bios. Any sort of encouragement by MS to move to a boring All-your-base type of arrangement would be lost on deaf ears to them.

People who build their own machines usually go with these manufacturers as well. If your intention is to buy a pre-built machine, then who cares? When you buy a dell, you aren't buying a dell with the intention of upgrading. Of course, upgrading is a nice option, but your joe-sixpack user would only upgrade if his geeky cousin told him to.

I'm not too worried. It's far easier to build a computer from parts than it is to build a car. There are fewer parts, lighter parts, less mechanical knowledge is required, etc. etc. If you want this part and that part, but can't find the package, it's not hard to build it yourself. Now, buying a base-package car and installing your own upgrades would be similar, and not as difficult, but some people don't want to spend the two or three hours to do so.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[NanoGator]

"Why does Microsoft feel the need to try to dumb down everything that has to do the PC."

Have you gone shopping for a game lately? I've been out of touch about video card specs lately, now it's like "uhh... well I hope it works."

There's a difference between 'dumbing down' and 'making things easier'.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[mattdm]

It does if you had something related to quantum physics sitting on your desk, you used it every day, couldn't live without it (e-mail), bought new things for it and yet actively refused to learn even the simplest things about it.

I dunno. I'm pretty attached to my CD player -- I use it every day, and despite mp3s, I buy new things for it. And yet, I really don't know all that much about the quantum mechanical effect that makes the laser work. It just generally does, and if it doesn't, I'll shrug and either get someone else to look at it or buy a new one.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[Johnny5000]

"Can you rebuild your own transmission? That's the auto equivalent of rolling a kernel, or maybe fixing driver corruption in Windows without a complete reinstall (aka chucking a car and getting a new one)"

To stick with the car analogy, I'd say it's more like buying a car without any idea of how to drive it, and refusing to learn how.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[naarok]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Apple does not "just work". If a person is used to Windows and Unix, moving to an Apple (even OS X) is a frustrating experience. Nothing just works. You have to re-learn everything about the GUI metaphor.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[kin_korn_karn]

You can drive a car without knowing how to service it. Most people that drive don't even know how to change their own oil or change a flat.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[naarok]

Maybe for an average user. Not for someone trying to develop an app and having to setup sharing across 3 OS's.

I'm willing to accept that for the uses you described, it "just works". It doesn't for all uses. (or in fact most uses I'd want to put it to)

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[coopaq]

I dunno. I'm pretty attached to my CD player -- I use it every day, and despite mp3s, I buy new things for it. And yet, I really don't know all that much about the quantum mechanical effect that makes the laser work. It just generally does, and if it doesn't, I'll shrug and either get someone else to look at it or buy a new one.

I have a hammer. I buy nails for it all the time.
I really don't know all that much about the quantum mechanical effect that makes the nails go in the wood.

Please.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[brandorf]

I don't know, those freebie jacks that come with your spare tend to be a bit complex compared to a garage jack. Also the owner would need to know where the safe spots to use the jack are, or risk damaging a side panel. Also, don't most cars have the security lugnuts these days?

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[severoon]

I don't get it. We have levels right now...we just don't call them "levels".

What's the point of adding another "level" of indirection in this process? Also, it's possible that you'll get manufacturers that try to exploit the interference between components. I have a crap processor and motherboard, so it should be in a level 3, but I've doubled the RAM and hard disk size expected for a level 3 machine, so it's actually a level 5 now. But run it up against any other level 5 machine, and it sucks.

Of course, we could solve this problem by creating a telephone book-sized standard that declares the minimum requirements necessary for each level. They'll have to settle on something that will flow along with time...the minimum requirements for a level 5 will change on a month-to-month basis. And then as people become dependent on this mindless system, and we get unethical manufacturers falsely advertising the levels of their hardware, we'll have to get Congress to start passing laws forbidding that kind of thing.

Actually, I'm starting to change my mind on this levels thing. If we work it right, we could snarl up major corporations and the government to the tune of billions of dollars and years of effort. Maybe if we distract them with this, they won't have time to keep messing up the important stuff in life.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[rgmoore]

To stick with the car analogy, I'd say it's more like buying a car without any idea of how to drive it, and refusing to learn how.

Buying a computer without knowing the processor speed is a lot more like buying a car without knowing the displacement or power of the engine. (Quick! How much power does your car's engine produce? Is that SAE net or gross? Is that measured on a dynamometer or a manufacturer's number, and if the latter is your manufacturer optimistic or conservative in rating its engines?) Most people don't really know the answer to that question, certainly not at the level of knowing the true output of the engine rather than what the manufacturer tells them.

The reason is that it isn't really important. What people really want to know is whether their car has acceptable pickup and if it will be able to haul or tow the amount of stuff that they usually want to carry. Of course, that's why car manufacturers try to provide people with performance numbers, like 0-60 time and maximum towing capacity, as well as raw horsepower. It's not unreasonable for computer users to want similar performance reviews instead of context-free numbers. Knowing that a computer can run normal office software and older games but will have trouble with video editing and Doom 3 is much more useful than being told it has an AthlonXP1700 and a GeForce 2, just as knowing that a truck will go 0-60 in 9.3 seconds and can tow up to 2500 pounds is more useful than knowing that it has 250 horsepower.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[Total_Wimp]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Apple does not "just work". If a person is used to Windows and Unix, moving to an Apple (even OS X) is a frustrating experience. Nothing just works. You have to re-learn everything about the GUI metaphor.

You are so right. I wish more people would acknowledge this fact. If you're unsure of what he means here folks then I have a little exercise for you.

1. Go to a Mac and open a web browser.
2. Go to a page with a text for like, say, the Slashdot Post Comment form.
3. Enter a bunch of text.
4. Highlight the text and hit ctrl-C, the widely-used Windows keyboard shortcut for copying text.

What happens to your text? That's right, the copy command basically ends up deleting your text (actually replaced with an unintended symbol) with no copy being made. Your work is gone with no backup.

This is not a flaw in the Mac, it's how they're designed to work, but it's an excellent example of how Macs DONT "just work" if you're used to working with Windows.

This guy is not bashing Macs. He's making a very important observation. Mac lovers need to grow up and realize that just 'cause it's easy for them (they already know about the command key) doesn't mean it's going to be easy for others.

TW

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[wickersty]

You're not getting it. You use it every day and buy new things for it. And let me ask you. Do you know how to turn it on? How to skip songs? How to rewind? How to eject the disc? If so, then you've just met his point. If you use a computer all the time, and buy things for it, you should know how to turn it on, how to launch software, how to CUT AND PASTE for god's sake. If you don't use one, and don't know, then it's the same thing as me not knowing how to fly a plane... I never have, never will, and dont have an interest in it. But I know how to drive my car... and I don't sit there in front of it wondering how to turn it on or open the door.

Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200

[suckmysav]

"Your card will run slower if the power supply cant give it enough juice"

Say what? Where I come from if a PSU can't supply enough juice your card will just lock up and/or your entire system will come crashing down in a heap.

Unless that's what you meant by "run slower" that is

Level ONE!

[BWJones]

Well, by God I want a Level ONE computer. Is not that what all geeks will aspire to? On a serious note, this proposal is going to run into some problems with the definition and quantification of just what is "A computer". For instance, we are not far off from having multiple core CPUs on one chip which gives many software vendors massive headaches. Additionally, the concept of clustering (I favor xGrid myself) shows the problem as well. Are you defining a level designation per task? per installation? per "box"? Honestly this smacks of marketing speak that is designed to sell discrete "game" packages and I am inclined to dismiss it as such unless somebody can more clearly define why this is necessary or why this has applicability beyond the gaming market. I suppose that if you could "quantify" the nature of the task in terms of how much "horsepower" or throughput a given computer system is capable of then one could apply it to something other than a game. But the problem is often not CPU limited unless you are dealing with large calculations which occupy big iron many hours to days to weeks and even when working with games you have the problem of perception. One could establish I suppose a lower limit of 30fps on any given resolution and then that will dictate what level of hardware was needed to maintain that frame-rate, but even then there are going to be other issues.....shading......polygon counts.....ray tracing.....etc....etc....etc.....

At any rate, because people should not let games wash over them like the TV does, they should have to work a little bit at it. Giving them options to tweak is important as it does teach some degree of problem solving and process optimization that for many kids at least is important.

Is it just me or have the comments gone downhill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately I've noticed a large number of one-liners in past several months being modded all the way up. It used to be that you'd have to post several paragraphs to score a +5. Likewise, the creativity of the trolls has gone downhill (with a few exceptions such as the gmail trolls). What's going on here? I think Slashdot is replacing its tech populance with ignorant teenagers and astroturfing marketers.

True, and what's worse

[Weaselmancer]

I completely agree. And it would be even worse than that.

Let's say that today, right now, the very best PC you can get is a level 10. Then, let's wait a year.

See where I'm going? What'll next year's very best be? A level 11? The system will wind up looking like Spinal Tap's amplifiers.

"No, mate. My PC goes to 11."

Re:True, and what's worse

[rnelsonee]

We could use a logarithmic scale.

Hmm... I kind of meant this to be a joke, but it would work. Use something like 1.5-base log where a 2 is 1.5x better than 1. A level 20 would be 437x faster, and by then something else would've come along....

The end consumer could care less about log scales. They might not understand them, but they're used in other things right now without complaint (Richter scale, dB levels...)

I already do this except my levels are in $

[ArsonSmith]

a $500 computer will have a mid range processor and memory

a $700 computer will be better

a $1500 computer will be better still

It even scales correctly as technologie comes out.

Re:I already do this except my levels are in $

[julesh]

It even scales correctly as technologie comes out.

No it doesn't. 10 years ago, I doubt you'd have been able to get a $500 computer, let alone one with "mid range processor and memory". 20 years ago, $1500 is the only one of your price ranges that would have got you a PC.

Sure, the pricing changes slower than the actual capabilities of the computer, but there is a shift to lower cost going on as well.

I believe....

[aengblom]

I believe those are called Macs.

Time

[glpierce]

Wouldn't the date be far more informative than anything else? If you have a 3-year old computer, I can probably give you general spec ranges to which it conforms. Whether you say it's a "Level 5" or not, my first response will always be "when was it made?" The only way to counter this would be to keep on going up (today's level 3 is next year's level 13). There are a hundred other reasons why this is a poor idea, but I'll leave them to other posts.

Terrible idea

[GoNINzo]

The idea of levels is just stupid. People can have machines with a vast array of different equipment. I might have a P4 with 128 meg of RAM and a Geforce 2 MX. How would that compare with a P4 with 128 meg of RAM and a Radeon 9800? It's really hard to make that comparison because they are both limited by the RAM.

It would be easier to designate a computer by a year when it was top of the line. For instance, if I put 'PC1999 compatible' means that it would be compatible with a computer that's 5 years old. A brand new game requiring a P4 3.0 with a gig of ram might be a PC2004+ or something. Most people can figure out what year their computer came from, once it's in general use.

A good example of the different requirements for games is the Sims 2. You need more hardware if you have a non-T&L card, but less if you get a better card. So it's video card dependant.

I hate this direction he is considering. Because I think he's just pushing it so that eventually you'd have Xbox 3 using a rating system on their games. 'Xbox 3 level 5 required' and such. ugh.

Level 5 WHEN?

[freeze128]

A level 5 computer today will no longer be a level 5 computer in 5 years. Do we just come up with a different numbering system then?

Maybe each system should be ranked by its PERFORMANCE (MIPS), and not some arbitrary numbering system.

Done Before?

[Solstice]

I seem to recall that they already tried this before with the Multimedia PC standard? Wikipeda helped fill in my fuzzy memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_PC

The reason for this is

[smartin]

So that they can price their O/S based on the speed of hardware running it. I used run into vendors trying to do this back in my network management days. I remember asking one of them. "You want me to pay more for your software because I paid more for the hardware I run it on?" and he said "Sure, you will get more use out of our software.". I was still laughing at him as I shoved him out the door.

brilliant idea (not)

[grm_wnr]

Aside from the obvious "Level degradation" some people (well, nearly all of the ;) ) already mentioned, don't we have somthing like this already? Minimum specs, recommended specs, and The Newest And Most Expensive Box There Is. Looks like three levels to me...

Marketting

[Mateito]

What a load of bollocks.

Obviously this is marketting crap aimed at the home user, but if they haven't yet worked out that YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR, will sticking yet another number help any?

If you are data crunching, you may need a level 5 Hard drive, a level 8 CPU, but a level 3 graphics card. If this is your home entertainment center,, you may be fine with a level 8 HD, level 6 CPU, level 4 graphics. Which machine is "better"? Its too easy to pull the wool over consumer's eyes. I'm sure we could all populate a m/board with heaps of the cheapest RAM available to knock a computer system up a notch or two.

Of course, to run Longhorn, you are looking at level 15, right off the bat, across the board.

Terror Level

[fiber0pti]

Sounds about as vague as the current terror level colors.

Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 4 years from now when someone says they have a level 6 computer from today and its no longer level 6. Do they plan on sending you a memo every month telling you your computer has now been degraded in class.

Retarded!

Stupid marketing idea, that's all

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

hmm...levels. Now consumers will have an objective gauge for their computer's performance. It's hard, though, when you only have, say levels 1-10. And it doesn't say much in the way of relative performance. Does a level 1 10% have as much performance as a level 10? Also, as someone pointed out, as hardware progresses, you'll need higher and higher numbers.

Maybe the solution is to have standards by which performance is measured. Someone could write software which evaluates a computer's performance and assigns a numerical value. Then consumers could use that as a guide. We could call it a "bench mark". Then people could get into all sorts of flame wars about these "bench marks", and how they are computed, and which one to use, and so on...

Amen for including amount of RAM

[badmonkey]

Joe consumer never buys machines with enough RAM- because Dell etc make a big deal about their systems having 4.0 Ghz processors, but in the smaller print, the system comes with something like a paltry 128 Megs of RAM. If the level system implies an acceptable amount of ram, then that's great.

why does microsoft even care?

[jpellino]

they make very little consequential pc hardware (keyboards, mice, discontinued wifi) - where does it matter for what they do?

unless they want to be clear about what the hw reqs are for a given sw package - and with karma to burn, he offered - won't they simply say that all ms bloat^H^H^H^H^Hsoftware needs level n+1 anyway?

or is it just another case of "we're from microsoft - we're here to help"

apple doesn't really do levels except with BTO they say good better best, and it's mostly the things that count, and those mostly in step - ram and hd and ghz and video sorta jump as one... additionally good better best is relative and numbers are absolute - tough to do for long.

Re:Understandable...

[polyp2000]

you MUST have a level X computer to run this game!

I havent RTFA (seems to be slashdotted or something wrong with ntl (again)) but how does the level system encompass operating system type?

eg: say my linux box qualifies as a "level 7" system and I go down to my local games shop and buy a copy of doom that says "Works On Level 7 Computers & Upwards" should I be getting in touch with trading standards cus it didnt specify Windows XP SP2 ?

Is this a cunning way to remove the operating system meme from consumers minds?

Nick ...