David Chernicoff
It's alive and well
or
Hardware? Ho-hum
Christopher Dawson
Best Argument:
It's alive and well
Audience Favored:
It's alive and well (80%)
List of Events:
Opening Statements
Hardware is what makes it possible
David Chernicoff: No matter how interesting software is, or how exciting the user experience becomes, without continued innovation in hardware technologies, software will begin to stagnate. Consumers demand, and vendors promise, impovements with each generation of product, and the only way to meet those continued demands is for the hardware to continually improve to exceed the demands of the next generation of software.
Hardware and software existing in a symbiotic relationship, with each step, on either side, driving the other forward to build something bigger and better. Momentary ascendance of either side doesn’t mean that the other is in permanent descent. Regardless of the software technology, the underlying hardware is what makes it possible.
Every major consumer software advance has become possible because of the underlying hardware. The implicit competition between hardware and software brings out the best in innovation on both sides. And that is not going to change anytime soon.
Merely a matter of preference
Chris Dawson: As the world moves online, hardware has become nothing more than a religion. I tend to use Macs because I like the OS and the hardware takes the abuse I give it. On the other hand, I’m writing this on a PC in a web browser. I could just as easily dictate it on my Droid. Even in the enterprise, there is a general move to the cloud or cheap clusters of generic servers.
While there will always be a place for high-end hardware and pushing the performance envelope, the vast majority of what we do is now far more dependent on an Internet connection than on 8 cores of processing power or the latest version of Windows running on a Wintel system. How users access the web -- whether it be from a mobile device, a speedy Macbook, a Chromebook, or a DIY desktop -- has become a matter of preference.
The Rebuttal
Closing Statements
Alive and well, enabling software
David Chernicoff
While it’s clear that for consumer solutions it is mainly about the user experience, which is a software driven aspect of product design, it can’t be forgotten that merely adequate hardware does not make for a good long-term user experience. If for that reason alone, continued hardware innovation is critical.
It’s also obvious from our debate that continued hardware development in the areas of battery technology, mobile data delivery, and general networking bandwidth delivery are lynchpins in the continued growth of cloud services and mobile devices, two of the fastest growing technology sectors.
And I don’t believe that there was ever any question that continued technological development for datacenter hardware, upon which the cloud and related services will live, will continue to allow the growth of current and the development of future cloud technologies.
In short, hardware innovation is alive and well. While much, at the moment, might seem to be behind the scenes, it is still going on and enabling software to realize its developers’ dreams.
No awesome new advances
Christopher Dawson
Never have we seen more evidence that we are truly in a “post-PC era.” While hardware manufacturers are pushing ultrabooks hard at CES this year, the only place where exciting developments are actually occurring is in the cloud. In all seriousness, will you be buying an $1100 ultrabook? Because this isn’t just a post-PC era, it’s post-recession 2012, when value is king and businesses that want to compete must cut corners and introduce efficiencies wherever possible.
Consumers as well love their gadgets, but need those gadgets to be inexpensive, have solid ecosystems, great battery life, and access the web at high speed. While hardware innovation is tied up in this, the real story is software and Internet infrastructure, not awesome new advances in hardware. And frankly, awesome new advances have, appropriately, gone by the wayside in favor of evolutionary platform advances.
Practically a draw
Lawrence Dignan
As much as I agree with Dawson that hardware doesn't matter---and ultimately won't---I have to go with Chernicoff. I'm not about to say that hardware development is tapped out yet. In fact, if I had the option I'd call this debate a draw since both and Chris and David made good points. As we stand today, however, I declare Chernicoff the winner.
More from "The Great Debate"
That's exactly why Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel.
As for phones, there are some pretty intense games on phones these days, which imposes a requirement on components.
As for phones, there are some pretty intense games on phones these days, which imposes a requirement on components.
@davidr69 Apple actually moved from Power PC chips to Intel for better mobile power handling and not really speed. Everyone knows the Power PC chip did very well against the intel chips except for power handling. Jobs finally got tired of waiting for them to reduce power consumption. Just as Apple has now embraced the A5 and A6 to come which may eventually replace Intel chips on some Mac's. Its all about power consumption these days.
@jscott418
So, you attempt to refute a claim showing where a change in hardware provided better performance...but your "reason" is because it provided a performance boost (i.e. better power handling).
And yes, power handling *is* a performance area. Otherwise, you wouldn't see laptop & tablet manufacturers doing all they can to minimize the power consumption of their chips & CPUs to make sure battery life lasts as long as possible...
So, you attempt to refute a claim showing where a change in hardware provided better performance...but your "reason" is because it provided a performance boost (i.e. better power handling).
And yes, power handling *is* a performance area. Otherwise, you wouldn't see laptop & tablet manufacturers doing all they can to minimize the power consumption of their chips & CPUs to make sure battery life lasts as long as possible...
@davidr69
This all-in-one world of PC's is finally coming to a reality. People like me who are two finger typist and have enjoyed playing games on their computers for years are coming to an end. Even an XBox 360 will be seeking further new technology with Crystal LED televisions in the near future to raise the bar and create a grandure revenue stream for the next, 'Next Generation'.
This all-in-one world of PC's is finally coming to a reality. People like me who are two finger typist and have enjoyed playing games on their computers for years are coming to an end. Even an XBox 360 will be seeking further new technology with Crystal LED televisions in the near future to raise the bar and create a grandure revenue stream for the next, 'Next Generation'.
@davidr69
Apple moved from PowerPC because both Motorola and IBM failed them.
Intel processors have always been junk.
Apple moved from PowerPC because both Motorola and IBM failed them.
Intel processors have always been junk.
I think for a lot of home users. it really does not matter. After all you can buy a iPad with a low powered core CPU that runs IOS just fine. Even play games with it. Or you can get a cheap laptop and play video on it and the speed will be fine. Their was a time when you needed better hardware then you do today. Of course some who have demanding programs such as video editing, hard core gaming, and graphic design certainly need the better hardware. But I do think its over sold and why would a home user buy more then they need? I have a 2010 Macbook Air and it only has a 1.86Ghz duel core Intel and it does just fine for what I use it for. I think the hardware makers would like to convince you that for example a second generation chip is better then the first. On paper I am sure it is. But does that translate into a better end user enperience? Not neccessarily.
@jscott418
"I have a 2010 Macbook Air and it only has a 1.86Ghz dual core Intel"
Then perhaps you don't realize that there is certain hardware inside that particular device which makes that low-speed processor liveable.
Why would someone buy more than they "need"? Because it's faster, that's why. Sure, there's a law of diminishing returns that kicks in for the highest-end components (i.e. the fastest video cards, SSDs, and processors that no other company can match) but aside from that you usually get the speed you pay for (with the exception of Apple for obvious reasons, and if you're buying Apple, "need" is not a factor).
I'll use you as an example. Why on earth would you (or any other person who buys a computer to just surf the Internet and process Word documents) buy a 1100-dollar Macbook Air when PCs that cost 400 dollars can do the same thing?
The answer is, quite simply, the hardware. Does a better keyboard, better trackpad, better battery life, and a drive that makes the computer much more responsive to your commands translate into a better user experience? If it didn't, how could Apple even exist?
Plus, people usually don't run out and buy every single thing that comes out for the reason that it isn't much faster than the older stuff (you're only usually looking at a 10% increase in performance). For example, you don't have the latest 2011 Macbook Air- and it isn't all that faster than the one you have now.
But those 10% increases add up. So when you're looking at the 2015 Macbook models (assuming Apple sticks with Intel and everything's the same), you'll be looking at a much larger increase.
If it didn't, why replace old, still-living components?
My 1998-vintage ThinkPad 600E still does those jobs just as well as your MBA can. Yet I've effectively retired that machine from service because I needed something that does what it cannot at the hardware level. Just like my old smartphone- I want a device that responds faster when I tilt it and power it up so I've retired the old one (plus there are some things it simply can't run due to hard limitations).
So I don't think it's oversold because the more expensive stuff is nearly always better and it stays usable longer.
"I have a 2010 Macbook Air and it only has a 1.86Ghz dual core Intel"
Then perhaps you don't realize that there is certain hardware inside that particular device which makes that low-speed processor liveable.
Why would someone buy more than they "need"? Because it's faster, that's why. Sure, there's a law of diminishing returns that kicks in for the highest-end components (i.e. the fastest video cards, SSDs, and processors that no other company can match) but aside from that you usually get the speed you pay for (with the exception of Apple for obvious reasons, and if you're buying Apple, "need" is not a factor).
I'll use you as an example. Why on earth would you (or any other person who buys a computer to just surf the Internet and process Word documents) buy a 1100-dollar Macbook Air when PCs that cost 400 dollars can do the same thing?
The answer is, quite simply, the hardware. Does a better keyboard, better trackpad, better battery life, and a drive that makes the computer much more responsive to your commands translate into a better user experience? If it didn't, how could Apple even exist?
Plus, people usually don't run out and buy every single thing that comes out for the reason that it isn't much faster than the older stuff (you're only usually looking at a 10% increase in performance). For example, you don't have the latest 2011 Macbook Air- and it isn't all that faster than the one you have now.
But those 10% increases add up. So when you're looking at the 2015 Macbook models (assuming Apple sticks with Intel and everything's the same), you'll be looking at a much larger increase.
If it didn't, why replace old, still-living components?
My 1998-vintage ThinkPad 600E still does those jobs just as well as your MBA can. Yet I've effectively retired that machine from service because I needed something that does what it cannot at the hardware level. Just like my old smartphone- I want a device that responds faster when I tilt it and power it up so I've retired the old one (plus there are some things it simply can't run due to hard limitations).
So I don't think it's oversold because the more expensive stuff is nearly always better and it stays usable longer.
@luckyducky7@... Well put and spot on!
@luckyducky7@... I have been saying for quite a while that the latest hardware (actually 3 to 4 years ago, or more) is more than adequate!
OK! What do you need the power for? Gaming? Hah! Modern games are written for the consoles then ported to PCs. They rarely take advantage of the superior hardware available! Video editing? Ah! here I don't really have an argument, as I don't do video editing. Yet, how many people do? I do touch up photos, but that doesn't need raw horsepower.
What people want is then best user experience! I am running an old Core 2 duo, with Windows 7 and 4 Gig of RAM. I consider that to be overkill!!! But what I have purchased that really adds to my user experience is a(n) SSD boot drive.
Turn the PC on and it's "there" in seconds! Programs start very quickly! Everything else is just fine! I can't type faster than the word processor, or the spreadsheet. My browser is constrained by the speed of my internet.
I used to be very interested in getting the latest (actually the 2nd to latest, as it's so much cheaper), and overclocking, and modding with 3rd party heatsinks, etc. But it wasn't being used.
I see, maybe, cloud computing being the future. A big grunting machine in the background, and light weight consuming devices in everyone's hands. Who actually needs a PC anymore? I can see Smart Phones and tablets taking hold in the user world, and servers in the background (Cloud, whatever)
Oh! My! IBM mainframes might make a comeback!
Hey! The vote button doesn't seem to work! I'm for Ho Hum!
OK! What do you need the power for? Gaming? Hah! Modern games are written for the consoles then ported to PCs. They rarely take advantage of the superior hardware available! Video editing? Ah! here I don't really have an argument, as I don't do video editing. Yet, how many people do? I do touch up photos, but that doesn't need raw horsepower.
What people want is then best user experience! I am running an old Core 2 duo, with Windows 7 and 4 Gig of RAM. I consider that to be overkill!!! But what I have purchased that really adds to my user experience is a(n) SSD boot drive.
Turn the PC on and it's "there" in seconds! Programs start very quickly! Everything else is just fine! I can't type faster than the word processor, or the spreadsheet. My browser is constrained by the speed of my internet.
I used to be very interested in getting the latest (actually the 2nd to latest, as it's so much cheaper), and overclocking, and modding with 3rd party heatsinks, etc. But it wasn't being used.
I see, maybe, cloud computing being the future. A big grunting machine in the background, and light weight consuming devices in everyone's hands. Who actually needs a PC anymore? I can see Smart Phones and tablets taking hold in the user world, and servers in the background (Cloud, whatever)
Oh! My! IBM mainframes might make a comeback!
Hey! The vote button doesn't seem to work! I'm for Ho Hum!
2 things compete of home users attention. Battery life and probably more important, price. So my solution is a nice Windows Laptop lower price, and quad core regular PC, then just do your video editing on the PC and that which needs to be portable on the laptop. Use DropBox and TeamViewer to Share and remotely access.
All for under $1000. A bargain compared to the 'Air'. Then again, If you have lots of cash, and you like to show off, why not go with the High Profile you can use as a mirror.
All for under $1000. A bargain compared to the 'Air'. Then again, If you have lots of cash, and you like to show off, why not go with the High Profile you can use as a mirror.
Even with that work being done by Internet connection, there is still hardware involved.
@rjm56
And not just at the server end either. The Internet connection itself is hardware related. Faster switches, faster routers, even down to the physics and improvements in the cable. Or perhaps Chris Dawson believes cloud computing is done on actual "clouds"...
And not just at the server end either. The Internet connection itself is hardware related. Faster switches, faster routers, even down to the physics and improvements in the cable. Or perhaps Chris Dawson believes cloud computing is done on actual "clouds"...
the next major innovations will come when hardware is finally up to the task of propelling artificial intelligence into the mainstream. As always, new and creative software begs for more powerful hardware. Its all part of the cycle of a technology that has yet to mature fully. Unfortunately, so called smartphones and similar devices, seem likely to slow that development
@winddrift03 - I agree when hardware has the power (along with 64 bit software) to propel AI to (2 to the 64th) gradient steps of decision making
AI will be mainstream. Predictions, projections, classification and pattern recognition will change everyday things dramatically. Things you never thought
possible will become "ho-hum" events.
AI will be mainstream. Predictions, projections, classification and pattern recognition will change everyday things dramatically. Things you never thought
possible will become "ho-hum" events.
I no longer care about the hardware details most of the time - I used to years ago. Now my main concern is does it do the job, and after that, how little power does it use, and are there hardware features that improve security.
When significant money was invested in hardware costs - I remember paying ??1600 ($2500) for 16M of memory once upon a time, it was a major purchase. Now a decent laptop is ??300/$500 and this time next year I can buy a better one for the same money - probably the spec of today's ??500/$800 machine.
When significant money was invested in hardware costs - I remember paying ??1600 ($2500) for 16M of memory once upon a time, it was a major purchase. Now a decent laptop is ??300/$500 and this time next year I can buy a better one for the same money - probably the spec of today's ??500/$800 machine.
The more that you expect from your software, the more you will need more capable hardware.
@jnowski
It's wh a growing number of my apps on my iPad2 wont run or run poorly on the iPad1......
It's wh a growing number of my apps on my iPad2 wont run or run poorly on the iPad1......
For people on the consuming end, it may not matter- but for people and organizations that produce products and services for profit in a competitive environment, hardware certainly does matter.
Just try to run some of the modern software on 5 and 10 year old computers!!!! That should be a good enough object lesson. Every time I get around an old XP computer with 1 gig of ram and a single core processor, I get pretty frustrated in a hurry. My current Lenovo has an i 7 core processor (effectively 8 cores) and 8 gig of ram. It is really enjoyable to use a computer with this much power, and what is available in 4 or 5 years might make this look old fashioned. An i pad cannot even come close to doing what my i 7 Lenovo does and would not be as convenient for the user either. People trying to claim that an i pad will cure all of society's ills must be taking something stronger than I do. All of the devices currently manufactured can do tasks that they are great at, but when it comes to full featured devices, a powerful laptop or desktop will be at the top of the heap!!!!
@rgeiken@...
Now if I could find a way to properly compact my AW Area51 into a tablet.....
Niiiice.......
Now if I could find a way to properly compact my AW Area51 into a tablet.....
Niiiice.......
Smaller,faster,cheaper, It's alive but is it well.
I purchased my most recent desktop computer (2.5GHz dual-core, 2GB, 500GB, DX10) for $299. At the Microsoft Store, Windows 7 would now cost you $119 (steeply discounted from its previous pricing) - that's 40% of the total cost of my system.
Look, faster is king. Don't care how you slice it. No matter what task I choose to do the faster I get it done the better. In this busy society we can't allow slow devices in our way.
If we didn't worry about speed than we would have stuck with 386's and DOS. Certainly you smart phone can do alot of things... but my high end desktop will eat it alive every time. I did try some lower power devices at one time like Zotac Mag... Atom based PC with Geforce GPU. While it does run what you need it to. It doesn't do it very well.
If we didn't worry about speed than we would have stuck with 386's and DOS. Certainly you smart phone can do alot of things... but my high end desktop will eat it alive every time. I did try some lower power devices at one time like Zotac Mag... Atom based PC with Geforce GPU. While it does run what you need it to. It doesn't do it very well.
While Chris touts the web as his primary argument, it has long been accepted that the average lifespan of a PC is around five years. I agree with rgeiken, in that most software and even a lot of modern websites currently do not run well on older PCs. At my job we are in the midst of evaluating how to properly upgrade our PCs which are 05 and 06 era, so that they can handle the software and franchise based web applications that we through at them. On the home end, I did some pretty extensive research before upgrading my wife's 2007 (old body style) MacBook Pro to Lion; before I did I was sure to upgrade her to 4GBs of RAM. Sure enough stories come out saying that while Lion will run on 2GBs, but it runs much better at 4GBs. We all remember the Vista debacle when it first came out. It was a hardware issue. Vista ran fine on computers with at least 2GBs of RAM, but was an absolute buggy dog on anything less and I would not recommend running on anything less than 3. My own home PC is a late 2008 MacBook Pro 2.93 Core2Duo, 4GBs of RAM with a 7200 RPM HD; this was a CTO, best you could build at the time and I see the performance hit that it has taken since then due to the higher processor and RAM demand from software and certain JAVA and Flash rich environments. For innovation to continue hardware will have to keep up. So what is leading innovation? The web. Chris is framing it as using Office on the web, but there is more to it than that. Sites where your family shops, communicates and does other daily tasks on the web are becoming more and more content rich and therefore require more power to render them fast. I will concede to Chris that if you don't mind slowing down some and taking longer to load pages, then sure stick with older hardware; because the newest crop of browsers from Chrome and Firefox are extremely fast, but they can only render as fast as the PC will let it. My closing statement is real simple, yet a very undeniable truth; as long as a Mac user sees the Spinning Beach Ball or a Windows user sees the Clock or the little Rotating Circle while they wait for something else to finish using your processor so you can move on to what you are doing, then hardware will always be relevant.
The software, the user and the bandwidth are driving most activities today. We do need something to touch to send or emit the message and something to read it on... but do those matter? I'm with Chris. It is all about preference.
If it doesn't belong to you, it doesn't matter. The plane you catch is less important than the car you drive. Your property matters, your opinion matters, your vote matters. Everything not yours gets a thought but a lot less emotion. Hardware matters if you bought it but someone else's hardware is background noise.
While hardware matters greatly, specifications seem to metter less now than they used to. We all want hardware that can run our software without problems. We don't like it when the hardware slows down the operation of the software, simply because it is too slow.
However, less and less focus is put on specifications, and more and more emphasis is put on how it 'just works'.
This is probably a result, partly due to the increasing popularity of Apple, and partly due to the fact that the computing device, be it a smart phone, tablet, or pc, has become a mainstream device. It is no longer the Geek's domain.
And as such, ease of use and reliability tend to take precedence to specs.
However, less and less focus is put on specifications, and more and more emphasis is put on how it 'just works'.
This is probably a result, partly due to the increasing popularity of Apple, and partly due to the fact that the computing device, be it a smart phone, tablet, or pc, has become a mainstream device. It is no longer the Geek's domain.
And as such, ease of use and reliability tend to take precedence to specs.
The question should be, SHOULD it matter anymore!
From the stupid consumer perspective it doesn't. The manufacturers love this because they can churn out barely-beyond-acceptable devices good enough for the near term paradigm. This means they sell more barely-beyond acceptable devices, almost annually, to the consumer who has no choice if they need to remain current.
Hardware should matter so that a more realistic less costly and wasteful 3-5 year replacement cycle can be the norm.
From the stupid consumer perspective it doesn't. The manufacturers love this because they can churn out barely-beyond-acceptable devices good enough for the near term paradigm. This means they sell more barely-beyond acceptable devices, almost annually, to the consumer who has no choice if they need to remain current.
Hardware should matter so that a more realistic less costly and wasteful 3-5 year replacement cycle can be the norm.
it is becoming less and less about CPUs and chipsets and more and more about the whole experience. Backlit keyboards, glass trackpads, aluminum vs. cheap plastic, etc.
It's alive and well.
On the tower side, they're still upping the ante somewhat with new CPUs and GPUs, and I'm nowhere near convinced that graphics are at the quality they need to be yet. Sure, they are flashy and jaw dropping, but there's still a lot more (especially with vegetation and hair/fur) that isn't quite up to snuff yet. Go ahead, walk up to a tree in any modern game today and take a close look, and try to tell me with a straight face it's realistic.
On the notebook side, battery life is a biggie, and it still needs to be improved. Hardware is definitely one way to get there, and IMO there's still a lot that can be done to reduce power requirements.
On the tablet side, it's new hardware with loads of promise. We've just seen the beginning.
On the phone side, we're seeing some interesting stuff. They can do 3D on a phone, and I think that's just the beginning. Also, it sounds like they still need to work out battery life with 4G, which will require hardware advances.
With consoles, they're almost 10 years behind PCs, and their age is showing. They're long overdue for a refresh.
IMO it's too tempting to talk about the "average" person and the lowest common denominator.
The truth? Nobody's average.
And even the theoretical "average" people will still benefit from increases in battery tech and better power management. And I'm sure they won't mind better looking games, either.
On the tower side, they're still upping the ante somewhat with new CPUs and GPUs, and I'm nowhere near convinced that graphics are at the quality they need to be yet. Sure, they are flashy and jaw dropping, but there's still a lot more (especially with vegetation and hair/fur) that isn't quite up to snuff yet. Go ahead, walk up to a tree in any modern game today and take a close look, and try to tell me with a straight face it's realistic.
On the notebook side, battery life is a biggie, and it still needs to be improved. Hardware is definitely one way to get there, and IMO there's still a lot that can be done to reduce power requirements.
On the tablet side, it's new hardware with loads of promise. We've just seen the beginning.
On the phone side, we're seeing some interesting stuff. They can do 3D on a phone, and I think that's just the beginning. Also, it sounds like they still need to work out battery life with 4G, which will require hardware advances.
With consoles, they're almost 10 years behind PCs, and their age is showing. They're long overdue for a refresh.
IMO it's too tempting to talk about the "average" person and the lowest common denominator.
The truth? Nobody's average.
And even the theoretical "average" people will still benefit from increases in battery tech and better power management. And I'm sure they won't mind better looking games, either.
Hardware matters to some people (like those many visitors to this site who have niche uses for PCs), but it doesn't matter to most PC users anymore. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get out and meet some average folks.
10 years ago, my primary reasons for upgrading my PC were inadequate gaming performance, inadequate resources for running newly purchased applications (especially my digital audio workstation software) and the need to use new peripherals or peripheral technologies that were not supported with my old hardware (eg. transitioning from USB to USB 2 or a PCI card which required a newer CPU). I can remember clearly one time many years ago (back in the days of the earliest Pentium processors) when I upgraded a machine because Microsoft had released a new version of its media player and my primary machine couldn't handle the visualizations smoothly! I was so pissed at the performance, the next day I bought a new motherboard, ram, and a Pentium 2 CPU etc. just so that I could use the new media player. That scenario will never happen today....and that's my point.
These days, I use consoles for gaming, and there's no compelling reason for me to use a modern high end processor. The low end desktop processors are all at least 5 times faster than what we were using just 7 years ago. I now use AMD processors rather than Intel for all but two of my tower PCs (I have 6 in total). This home-built machine that I'm using now, for example, runs on an Athlon ll X2 250 dual core processor. Once upon a time, it was possible for a newly released application to demand so much CPU resources that the PC slowed to a literal crawl once it was loaded. Now, most applications used by consumers don't come anywhere near to choking a four year old PC, much less a modern low end budget PC. Even on this 'low end' machine, it's rare for the processor cores to ever reach 100% use even when running several applications simultaneously.
Hey, if you don't believe me, just bear this point in mind - The average consumer application's system requirements have frozen over the last several years. That's the big telltale sign that hardware doesn't matter much anymore.
10 years ago, my primary reasons for upgrading my PC were inadequate gaming performance, inadequate resources for running newly purchased applications (especially my digital audio workstation software) and the need to use new peripherals or peripheral technologies that were not supported with my old hardware (eg. transitioning from USB to USB 2 or a PCI card which required a newer CPU). I can remember clearly one time many years ago (back in the days of the earliest Pentium processors) when I upgraded a machine because Microsoft had released a new version of its media player and my primary machine couldn't handle the visualizations smoothly! I was so pissed at the performance, the next day I bought a new motherboard, ram, and a Pentium 2 CPU etc. just so that I could use the new media player. That scenario will never happen today....and that's my point.
These days, I use consoles for gaming, and there's no compelling reason for me to use a modern high end processor. The low end desktop processors are all at least 5 times faster than what we were using just 7 years ago. I now use AMD processors rather than Intel for all but two of my tower PCs (I have 6 in total). This home-built machine that I'm using now, for example, runs on an Athlon ll X2 250 dual core processor. Once upon a time, it was possible for a newly released application to demand so much CPU resources that the PC slowed to a literal crawl once it was loaded. Now, most applications used by consumers don't come anywhere near to choking a four year old PC, much less a modern low end budget PC. Even on this 'low end' machine, it's rare for the processor cores to ever reach 100% use even when running several applications simultaneously.
Hey, if you don't believe me, just bear this point in mind - The average consumer application's system requirements have frozen over the last several years. That's the big telltale sign that hardware doesn't matter much anymore.
@eMJayy
"Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get out and meet some average folks."
I have. None of them were really "average." I'd say most of them would at least enjoy better battery life and power management.
"These days, I use consoles for gaming,"
, and they need an upgrade too. In fact, I think there have been some recent announcements.
Not to mention just because you have stopped using consoles for gaming doesn't mean PC gaming has died. It's alive and well, thanks, I happen to play games on my own PC quite a bit.
"Even on this 'low end' machine, it's rare for the processor cores to ever reach 100% use even when running several applications simultaneously. "
Don't confuse % utilized with performance. A PC with a faster CPU will be faster regardless of utilization.
"Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get out and meet some average folks."
I have. None of them were really "average." I'd say most of them would at least enjoy better battery life and power management.
"These days, I use consoles for gaming,"
, and they need an upgrade too. In fact, I think there have been some recent announcements.
Not to mention just because you have stopped using consoles for gaming doesn't mean PC gaming has died. It's alive and well, thanks, I happen to play games on my own PC quite a bit.
"Even on this 'low end' machine, it's rare for the processor cores to ever reach 100% use even when running several applications simultaneously. "
Don't confuse % utilized with performance. A PC with a faster CPU will be faster regardless of utilization.
I need an option for "Hardware still matters, just not as much as it did 10 or 15 years ago" . Some of this has to do with economic matters: Both enterprise and personal consumers are stretching the lifespans of their electronic devices (with exception to smartphones) and not upgrading as much as they did in the past to save money. Some of it has to do with hardware overkill: My 70 year old mother doesn't need a Core i7 to surf the web and check her email, but that doesn't mean she doesn't see immediate, real, benefits from getting a Core i3 to replace an aging old Celeron system.
I mean, hell, I still use my 9 year old PowerBook G4 Ti as a lounge-around-the-house system, but when I need to get a significant amount of tasks done, I'm back to my Windows 7 Intel Core Series desktop.
Hardware innovations and software innovations are joined at the hip. Just because it doesn't matter as much and people are holding on to technology assets longer doesn't mean hardware is irrelevant.
I mean, hell, I still use my 9 year old PowerBook G4 Ti as a lounge-around-the-house system, but when I need to get a significant amount of tasks done, I'm back to my Windows 7 Intel Core Series desktop.
Hardware innovations and software innovations are joined at the hip. Just because it doesn't matter as much and people are holding on to technology assets longer doesn't mean hardware is irrelevant.
It is same as with cars - why does it matter that a particular car can reach 180 mph when the speed limit is 55? Because underpowered cars, while drivable, are not enjoyable.
Underpowered computers are likewise, usable, but not as much fun.
Underpowered computers are likewise, usable, but not as much fun.
...that hardware and software change so often that a trade show makes little sense?
Not as long as people are happy with their little apps on their weak powered dumb phones. I'll be impressed when I can play Crysis on one. Until then, I'll just live in the past with my old computer that can laugh at any X-box or PSWhatever and play real Computer games.
"The Cloud" is not for me - I am still an individual, my e-mails are mine, anything I write is mine, my photos are mine - and putting everything in the hands of another entity who could impose storeage fees, use charges, or simply say "sorry bud, its OURS" is not for me. I want to know where MY STUFF actually IS ..... I want hardware and I buy ahead of the curve so I dont have to buy again for several years. I do not want to buy anything that will be obsolete in three. I am a busy person and I am impatient and when I want something I like to see it up on the screen, like now! I pay for cable access - although you could say I do not "need" it for my life it is necessary. I am sure I am not alone.
Just reading about Kinnect for Windows. Mentioned being able to take measurements for custom made cloths which would take online cloths shopping to another level. Hardware needs enough power. When we have too much power for everything we can do with computers then hardware upgrades will no longer matter.
The best line i ever heard!
"You can throw all the hardware you want at Word and it's still going to be Word. Curtis Cubicle can only type so fast"
Honestly even though im against mrdatahs some of his responded are nice
"You can throw all the hardware you want at Word and it's still going to be Word. Curtis Cubicle can only type so fast"
Honestly even though im against mrdatahs some of his responded are nice
HO-Hums are the downfall of civilization. While Americans "ho-hum", hardware production is "alive and well" in China.
HO-Hums are the downfall of civilization. While Americans "ho-hum", hardware production is "alive and well" in China.
Mr. Dawson will probably blame losing on this being a site for tech-heads, instead of recognizing that all the cool stuff his Mac currently does, and in the super lightweight form factor, with super nice screen, with a day long battery life, is all due to hardware progress.
Either Mr. Dawson will admit that now, OR go back to working on a 5-10 year old Macbook, and a cheapo non-smartphone. And you know what: 5 years from now there's no way he'd want to work on current hardware.
Either Mr. Dawson will admit that now, OR go back to working on a 5-10 year old Macbook, and a cheapo non-smartphone. And you know what: 5 years from now there's no way he'd want to work on current hardware.
Every Techie and gadget user I know (myself included) always looks to the brand (OS) first, then specs second. For instance, I'd always reach out for a Windows Phone even though I know the Droid eqivalent would be packed with better hardware specs. Hardware specs. are important, yes, but they are still second place. . .
"On the other hand, I???m writing this on a PC in a web browser."
OK, time to say something maybe a bit shocking:
The web browser isn't just a fancy terminal anymore.
Nope, it isn't. It has computational power and local storage, thanks to recent web technologies. It's expected to work, even while offline or with a crappy connection.
So the simplistic "you're just a window to a server" isn't true anymore.
Sorry to disappoint.
OK, time to say something maybe a bit shocking:
The web browser isn't just a fancy terminal anymore.
Nope, it isn't. It has computational power and local storage, thanks to recent web technologies. It's expected to work, even while offline or with a crappy connection.
So the simplistic "you're just a window to a server" isn't true anymore.
Sorry to disappoint.
Every Techie and gadget user I know (myself included) always looks to the brand (OS) first, then specs second. For instance, I'd always reach out for a Windows Phone even though I know the Droid eqivalent would be packed with better hardware specs. Hardware specs. are important, yes, but they are still second place. . .
If the people who think hardware is irrelevant, they seem to forget that such a case would cease further adbancement of hardware; effectively drawing a technical line in the sand beyond which hardware capabilities could never change. In less than a decade, there would be a gnashing and grinding of teeth for better hardware that would support what the software could be capable of. Say that atttude pervaded the video card industry before the 3-D stuff became possible at a reasonable price. You could quit keeping track of video card vendors, but you could also forget using the 3-D and many other capabilties that came along with it.
The negatve attitude of hardware not being important is myopic, silly and would stagnate the industry.
The negatve attitude of hardware not being important is myopic, silly and would stagnate the industry.
We can't always rely on the cloud to do what we want. Local resources are and will always be important. Faster, cheaper, longer battery life, are what we all want.
Interesting that Chris Dawson keeps going on about "cloud computing" yet at the same time claim hardware doesn't matter.
I mean, what does he think "cloud computing" runs on, actual clouds???
I mean, what does he think "cloud computing" runs on, actual clouds???
No hardware? Then where do you install your software? Hardware is alive and well.
Join the conversation!
Debate Event Reminders
The Great Debate Newsletter
With the Great Debate newsletter, you get a front-row seat to every argument until the final gavel falls.
Upcoming Debate
-
Can PC makers survive in a post PC world?
May 29, 2012 | 7:00 AM PDT
Add to Calendar
Comments from the floor
Facebook Activity
Hardware, The Backbone of Any Device.
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
And not just at the server end either. The Internet connection itself is hardware related. Faster switches, faster routers, even down to the physics and improvements in the cable. Or perhaps Chris Dawson believes cloud computing is done on actual "clouds"...