"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

[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

[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

[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

[Luigi30]

All of this will make you shit yourself, which requires Level 3 Toilets, and if you don't, Level 2 Toilet Paper to clean up.

so

[TupperTrenine]

How much experience do I need to level up to a Radeon x800?

All I know..

[Artie_Effim]

In the futuire MY PC will go to 11.

Remember MPC?

[Fez]

They already tried this before... There was the "Multimedia PC" (MPC) spec that had level 1, 2, 3, etc based on whether or not your PC had a CD-ROM, sound card, graphics capable of 800x600 and so on.

This was back in the days of Windows 3.1, even.

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."

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.

Operating System Levels

[Anonymous Coward]

If operating systems had levels:

- Windows ME would run under the maximum negative value limit
- Windows XP would probably be 2
- Windows 2000 would probably be 2.5
- Windows Server 2003 would probably be 3
- Linux would probably be a 5
- Mac OS X would probably be a 5.000001 just to piss off Linux people
- *BSD would be a 10

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.

Re:Two words:

[Dark Lord Seth]

Your PC has gained 250 experience points!

Level up! Your PC is now level 4!

Your PC attacks Doom 3 ( level 9 ) with a bastard sword!

Doom 3 attacks your PC ( level 4 ) with a Minigun with HE ammo!

Your PC has died. (A)bort, (F)ail, (R)etry?