The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Trekky0623 on March 01, 2012, 11:38:26 AM
-
They are.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4d/Windows_8_Developer_Preview_Start_Screen.png/800px-Windows_8_Developer_Preview_Start_Screen.png)
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/c7918bb5c11715e0e20486d885183a93.png)
-
They are.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4d/Windows_8_Developer_Preview_Start_Screen.png/800px-Windows_8_Developer_Preview_Start_Screen.png)
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/c7918bb5c11715e0e20486d885183a93.png)
They are making them simpler to use, which they have always been doing. And when it gets more complicated everyone cries out for it to be made more simple. Luckily Microsoft said that they will be supporting windows 7 till 2020 so as of now i feel no need to change.
-
Terrible. Just terrible.
-
Win 8 will serve my HTPC quite well, especially if I can get the Kinect to work.
-
I think Microsoft are going to get a rude-awaking when they launch Windows 8.
Business don't want tablets. They are easy to steal, productivity is virtually non-existent. Try and spend 8 hours making a spreadsheet or typing up a presentation on a tablet.
Gamers won't be interested. Swiping your finger about doesn't make as good games as a mouse or a joystick. Your hand is always covering the screen and there is no real hardware power.
Enthusiasts won't like it. Try building a tablet yourself.
Its f*cking dirty. Greasy finger prints all over the screen. They certainly aren't machines to share.
I think a lot of people (and definitely most businesses) will do a Vista on Windows 8. They'll stick with Windows 7 which is a very good OS and wait 3 years for Microsoft to get its crap together with Windows 9. Part of me thinks Microsoft expect this and will sell Windows 7 and 8 together allowing businesses to use 7 whilst phone and tablet home users can use 8. Also I hate the Metro-interface. I'd want to turn that off instantly on a PC.
-
I think Microsoft are going to get a rude-awaking when they launch Windows 8.
Business don't want tablets. They are easy to steal, productivity is virtually non-existent. Try and spend 8 hours making a spreadsheet or typing up a presentation on a tablet.
Gamers won't be interested. Swiping your finger about doesn't make as good games as a mouse or a joystick. Your hand is always covering the screen and there is no real hardware power.
Enthusiasts won't like it. Try building a tablet yourself.
Its f*cking dirty. Greasy finger prints all over the screen. They certainly aren't machines to share.
I think a lot of people (and definitely most businesses) will do a Vista on Windows 8. They'll stick with Windows 7 which is a very good OS and wait 3 years for Microsoft to get its crap together with Windows 9. Part of me thinks Microsoft expect this and will sell Windows 7 and 8 together allowing businesses to use 7 whilst phone and tablet home users can use 8. Also I hate the Metro-interface. I'd want to turn that off instantly on a PC.
You do know that the "metro" theme for windows 8 is the equivalent to the start menu, right? There's still the desktop environment we all know and love. So you'd only be spending as much time in "metro" as you normally do in the start menu.
-
The start menu doesn't cover my desktop.
-
Its f*cking dirty. Greasy finger prints all over the screen. They certainly aren't machines to share.
You share your computer? Sick.
-
No, not my computer. I'd rather share my wife or a condom or a small boy. But I have been to places of work where they expect you to use a computer that hasn't just been removed from a box! :o In fact its had some rotten old bastard eat his breakfast over it for 3 years or some intern that never washed his hands after taking a shit had it before me, or that guy in the office with the cold sweaty handshake had been using it or the secretary that had sex with the entire IT department whilst at work has been touching all the keys. And as dirty and horrible as that is, its not as bad swiping and dragging your fingers all over the screen.
I think H&S should insist everyone gets a fresh keyboard when they start a job to stop all the stomach bugs and stuff you get. I'm screwing my face up as I'm typing. Its making me sick thinking about it.
-
So...
Care to share the wife?
-
I don't have a wife. But if I did, I'd happily let you share her before I'd let you and your beard anywhere near my computer! >:(
-
The start menu doesn't cover my desktop.
So what %age of your computer time would you estimate you spend in the start menu? With my desktop shortcuts, hot keys and quick launch toolbar, I would say I spend about .01% of my computer time in the start menu, mostly using the "run" function.
-
You actually use the desktop? Crazy. The only time I ever see my desktop is the moment after booting up Windows and before I launch my IRC client or Firefox. And quicklaunch icons only clutters up the taskbar.
-
They are.
Incorrect. Morons who buy shitty operating systems are turning computers into tablets. The companies that make those operating systems are only catering to their moronic user bases.
Thankfully, I don't use shitty operating systems and my operating system's user base is composed mainly of non-morons, so I don't need to worry about any of this.
-
Is someone assuming tablets will forever take over PCs? Thork? Trekky?
Or is this just simply computer companies trying to corner another market, and a big fuss over nothing?
-
I suspect tablets will eventually take over PCs. Add in a docking station and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and you have yourself a decent setup.
Granted, it'll be a few decades before it happens but I suspect it will. First for home users then businesses.
-
I suspect tablets will eventually take over PCs. Add in a docking station and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and you have yourself a decent setup.
Granted, it'll be a few decades before it happens but I suspect it will. First for home users then businesses.
Why a few decades? The PC has been the norm for over 20 years now, about as long as the PDP series and far longer than the VAX. It's time for it to give way to something new.
Now, I'm not for a minute advocating that tablets are a desirable progression from PCs. Contemporary tablet operating systems are crap, and the hardware isn't much better. However, all good things must come to an end, and in order for computer technology to progress, old technologies must be replaced with new ones.
The PC's longevity is attributable to the popularity of Microsoft Windows, as historically Windows has supported only one platform, but with the recent rise in popularity of alternative operating systems and platforms we could soon see drastic change, hopefully for the better.
-
I think that a tablet and computer are a hybrid of the future.
That's to say I think there will only be one board. With the likes of Intel incorporating graphics on their processors, graphics cards will disappear. Then they will look to put the sound card in the processor. Then they might suck in the North and south bridge and put the Ram on the chip and now with intel SSDs why not your hard drive? I suspect they will just make them do more and more until the processor is a standalone computer. Small and powerful and able to sit in the palm of your hand, but with the power of a desktop. The days of a large noisy box under your desk are almost over, of that I am convinced. But touch screens aren't the answer. You can't shrink your chubby fingers with the technology, nor will your eyesight get any better. I think this is a period of dithering before Intel manage to sneak a processor behind your ear that assists you in cognitive calculation. A quick wifi connection and you can listen to radio, watch tv, browse the internet, calculate pi or do your shopping all as though it was a day dream. And then google will sell your dreams to advertisers.
-
With the likes of Intel incorporating graphics on their processors
Dude, what?
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
I see this as the start of digital cannibalism. If they can stick a graphics card chip with the power of nvidias latest and greatest, who'd buy the extra graphics card? Only a very small section of enthusiasts. I for example didn't buy a low end graphics card because my intel chip is actually better than many low end cards. If it was better than many high end cards, that would be game over for the graphics guys. Intel are going to eat more and more of their market as their graphics get better. If graphics why not other things. Sound cards would be a really simple thing to add on.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
[citation needed]
-
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-APUs-and-Intel-Hybrid-CPUs-Dominate-Graphics-Shipments-231336.shtml
Without getting all semantic on me, read that link. It supports what I am trying to say.
-
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-APUs-and-Intel-Hybrid-CPUs-Dominate-Graphics-Shipments-231336.shtml
Without getting all semantic on me, read that link. It supports what I am trying to say.
It does; however, it contains no technical information, and its only technical references are to other articles on the same website. I was hoping for something a bit more detailed and official, like the specifications for such a chip on Intel's website. Surely that shouldn't be too hard to provide, if (as you claim) they're all Intel produces anymore?
-
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-APUs-and-Intel-Hybrid-CPUs-Dominate-Graphics-Shipments-231336.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-APUs-and-Intel-Hybrid-CPUs-Dominate-Graphics-Shipments-231336.shtml)
Without getting all semantic on me, read that link. It supports what I am trying to say.
It does; however, it contains no technical information, and its only technical references are to other articles on the same website. I was hoping for something a bit more detailed and official, like the specifications for such a chip on Intel's website. Surely that shouldn't be too hard to provide, if (as you claim) they're all Intel produces anymore?
Is this any better?
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hd-graphics/hd-graphics-developer.html
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
[citation needed]
I think he means they are shifting their focus to lower end budget CPUs with integrated graphics closer to what AMD offers with its APU series. Right now if you are buying a low end system, and you do not plan on buying a dedicated GPU, the market is dominated by chips like the 3870k, which has discrete class graphics GPU integrated in to the CPU. This allows for games like skyrim to be played on medium settings no problem of integrated graphics, while the Intel HD 3000 can hardly manage 9 FPS on medium settings.
But he is incorrect that they no longer make CPUs, as their flagships still lack any sort of integrated graphics. This was actually a really smart move for AMD since the own ATI. I cannot see intel giving up and moving entirely into APUs, as they generally are lacking in both categories (CPU/GPU) for enthusiast builders and other things that require extremely fast CPUs and or GPUs.
I could see AMD making a much larger shift into this market though. Since it owns and amazing graphics company, makes decent inexpensive cpus, and is now moving over to 32nm, it could start to produce large numbers of inexpensive low power consumption APUs for both laptops and low/medium end desktops. In fact AMD has set the date for the last of its CPUs with out gpus, which is a piledriver chip in late 2012. Intel on the other hand will continue to produce chips that have no business having integrated GPUs for the extended future.
-
I think the thing you missed, is that I'm not talking about what will happen this year or next year. Eventually Intel and AMD are going to be able to put top of the range GPUs into their processors. I'm not talking about their current product range. They don't have the technology right now to make a worthwhile graphics offering for a top end processor. But one day they will. And I don't think it will stop there. From there I think they will start to eat up all the other things in a computer. This makes sense.
Lets say a computer needs to cost $500 and has a sound card, network card and tv card in it. the processor is $100 of the price. Now if they can put those three things in their chip, they can charge say $120 per chip but the total cost of the machine comes down to $450. So they make $20 more (probably $17 more profit) and the customer gets the same power computer for $50 less. Hypothetical but that's the business plan. Its what they have done to low end and mid-range computers regarding graphics. The more they can stuff on their chip, the cheaper the machine and the larger slice of profit they make.
So, from there, why not stick the RAM on the chip? The North and South bridge reducing what motherboard manufacturers can charge. Why not stick 20Gb of SSD on the chip? Once you are there, you could mount an Intel operating system onto the chip. They already make SSD. Intel are in a position to eat everyone else in the next 30 years. At least if I was MD, this would be my strategy.
Intel hold all the cards. Even Microsoft are at their mercy to an extent, because they make the brain of the machine, and no one seems to be able to compete with them on that. So that's my prediction. Your entire computer will end up on the one chip. Then that chip can go in a tablet, or a phone, or wherever. It doesn't matter. You'll have unbelievable power in all devices and Intel will have almost total market share.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.
Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.
-
Intel hold all the cards. Even Microsoft are at their mercy to an extent, because they make the brain of the machine, and no one seems to be able to compete with them on that. So that's my prediction. Your entire computer will end up on the one chip. Then that chip can go in a tablet, or a phone, or wherever. It doesn't matter. You'll have unbelievable power in all devices and Intel will have almost total market share.
Except that the x86 architecture has inherent inefficiencies that make it not very well suited to this kind of shrinkage, which puts Intel at a disadvantage. There's a reason why the majority of mobile phones use ARM chips.
I agree with the direction you suggest personal computing is moving in, but I don't think Intel is going to lead the way there.
-
Parsifal is correct, ARM has a huge lead in this regard, and all other companies are playing catch up. For anything mobile, intel chips are much too power hungry for the job.
Microsoft even recognizes the power ARM will have in the future and is integrating ARM support in their Windows 8 OS.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.
Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.
The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.
Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.
The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.
Extreme edition processors are not Intel's flagship product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_product). If anything, they are a niche product.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.
Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.
The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.
Extreme edition processors are not Intel's flagship product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_product). If anything, they are a niche product.
Wikipedia is wrong on that one. A flagship is generally the largest, fastest, strongest vessel in the navy, and the commander of the entire fleet is on board. So the expression generally refers the best that is offered, and this is certainly true for CPUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship
A flagship store is the biggest and best store, a flagship car model is the most expensive usually, or fastest, or biggest.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Intels-1000-flagship-CPU-exists-again-form-3960X-Extreme-Edition
http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/amds-flagship-hd6990-is-silent-air-cooling-possible/
http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/1008_cadillac_flagship_is_back_on/
these are all the best the company has to offer, and therefore considered the "flagship", which is not a "core" product.
-
Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion. Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.
-
Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion. Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.
But they are relevant to the Thork's post.
-
Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion. Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.
But they are relevant to the Thork's post.
Thork is more or less describing a SoC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip), which has been around for quite a while in the embedded processor market.
-
The important question about this thread is about why I always want to use scrollbars in images even if they aren't the same as the scrollbars that are actually used by my computer.
-
Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion. Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.
But they are relevant to the Thork's post.
Thork is more or less describing a SoC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip), which has been around for quite a while in the embedded processor market.
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
I was responding to this.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
I was responding to this.
The APU that Thork is referring to is just marketing speak for a CPU and a GPU on the same die. Using that logic, one could argue that Intel hasn't made CPUs since the 486DX came with an integrated FPU.
-
You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.
I was responding to this.
The APU that Thork is referring to is just marketing speak for a CPU and a GPU on the same die. Using that logic, one could argue that Intel hasn't made CPUs since the 486DX came with an integrated FPU.
Hahahah yeah, i know about computers... i built three in the last week. One of them was A F1 socket with a 3870k. My point is that Intel still builds designated CPUs, in fact they have an entire socket that lacks any sort of on-board graphics. The 2011 socket, or sandy bridge - E does not support integrated graphics (and its a very new socket). This will be the case for the foreseeable future, integrated graphics have improved, but they are nowhere near the realm of what you can achieve with dedicated GPUs. iI doubt that integrated GPUs will come close to crossfired 7970s.
For now there is an enthusiast market, and therefore Intel will continue to make CPUs, not just APUs.
This directly contradicts what Thork said. He may have meant to say "the market is switching towards integrated graphics" but what he said was "intel does not make CPUs anymore" which is very different and incorrect.
-
And I'm just saying that calling a CPU with integrated graphics and APU is just buying into silly marketing dribble. As far as I'm concerned, an i7 is a CPU regardless of whether or not a GPU has been integrated.
-
And I'm just saying that calling a CPU with integrated graphics and APU is just buying into silly marketing dribble. As far as I'm concerned, an i7 is a CPU regardless of whether or not a GPU has been integrated.
I agree. I mean, the only thing that separates a GPU from a CPU as far as I know is a GPU has instruction sets designed to optimize graphical math functions. So throw in a few dozen more instruction sets and there ya go.
-
Tablets are definitely the way of the future, but my guess is that the keyborad and mouse will soon enter into a happy marriage with them. The problem right now is that it's very hard to make a lightweight, desirable tablet which has specs comparable to a decent PC.
That will change, and when it does, people will buy a tablet that comes with a keyboard and mouse, plug them in, and use it just as they would a desktop computer. Then when they head out later on, they'll unplug it and bring their tablet with them. Or, they'll have extremely portable (possibly fabric-based) versions of those devices. They'll have the best of both worlds.
There are many people out there who use their computers primarily to browse the internet, listen to music/watch films, and write things (emails, tweets, facebook updates, essays etc). They don't want a big home computer and a fairly heavy laptop. They want something simple, portable and functional.
I agree that tablets are currently not capable of replacing traditional computers. I certainly won't be getting one yet. But I can definitely see a day when they'll make sense.
-
Tablets are definitely the way of the future, but my guess is that the keyborad and mouse will soon enter into a happy marriage with them. The problem right now is that it's very hard to make a lightweight, desirable tablet which has specs comparable to a decent PC.
That will change, and when it does, people will buy a tablet that comes with a keyboard and mouse, plug them in, and use it just as they would a desktop computer. Then when they head out later on, they'll unplug it and bring their tablet with them. Or, they'll have extremely portable (possibly fabric-based) versions of those devices. They'll have the best of both worlds.
There are many people out there who use their computers primarily to browse the internet, listen to music/watch films, and write things (emails, tweets, facebook updates, essays etc). They don't want a big home computer and a fairly heavy laptop. They want something simple, portable and functional.
I agree that tablets are currently not capable of replacing traditional computers. I certainly won't be getting one yet. But I can definitely see a day when they'll make sense.
Perhaps a keyboard, but I don't know that a mouse is a desirable attachment for the next generation.
-
Well, I'm thinking of a modern version, like a wireless trackpad. Typing with a keyboard and using the touch-screen isn't really going to work. Fabric keyboards are already with us (though they're still quite gimmicky), and motion-sensing keyboards and trackpads can't be too far away.
-
I think that tablets will just be in interim product until wearable computers mature into something that doesn't make you look like a cyborg or an idiot (or both). However, wearable computers will only be in interim step until implants become practical.