Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Levels" of Computers the Future?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the do-they-get-xp-too dept.

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."

29 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by DVDAshot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by RazzleFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    4. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ...

    5. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by BeerCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    7. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by emag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    8. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by joeljkp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    10. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by fupeg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    11. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by mattdm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by Johnny5000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    14. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by naarok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by naarok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

    16. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by coopaq · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    17. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by severoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    18. Re:Alex, I'll take Level 6 for $200 by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

  2. Level ONE! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  3. True, and what's worse by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:True, and what's worse by rnelsonee · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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...)

  4. I already do this except my levels are in $ by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    1. Re:I already do this except my levels are in $ by julesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Time by glpierce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    G
  6. Terrible idea by GoNINzo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
    "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
  7. Done Before? by Solstice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  8. The reason for this is by smartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  9. Stupid marketing idea, that's all by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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...