Are PCs having TOO MUCH computing power?
in [Hardware]
|
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) on 4 Mar 2010 07:54 > If the demand for these high powered gaming or number crunching machines was > lower, then the manufacturers wouldn't bother developing them. I think your > 'niche, minority', but actually be a significantly large group to justify > all the R&D money. No, they would not go back. Once you have a better and faster, the old ones would be replaced! I only think most people are not using the full potential of the latest and greatest! :) -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33 ^ ^ 20:52:01 up 1 day 4:47 1 user load average: 1.06 1.06 1.07 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Sjouke Burry on 4 Mar 2010 19:02 GT wrote: > "Mickel" <mickle(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:uuDjn.11038$pv.1543(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> "Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in >> message news:hmikdb$96f$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) >> Most people watch video on their PC and it takes a 3ghz dual core PC to >> watch a hi def video while recording one or 2 others. > > I don't think that is true. At least half of the PCs in the world must sit > on desks in offices and aren't used as TV. Of those PCs in peoples home, I > would be surprised if more than 1 third are used to watch TV - most people > have a TV for that job. That means that less than 1 sixth of PCs are used to > watch TV. I also don't think many of those PC TV watchers actually watch 1 > channel while recording 1 or 2 others - there are dedicated boxes that do > this job much better and easier. > > I agree with your spec statement, just not the % of users implied. > > I watch an occasional tv program fine on a 2.6G singlecore celeron, with 512mb memory. Mostly the transmissions have a lousy quality, and no improvement on your system will cure that.
From: Mickel on 4 Mar 2010 19:19 "GT" <ContactGT_rem_ove_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b8f7b19$0$21127$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > I don't think that is true. At least half of the PCs in the world must sit > on desks in offices and aren't used as TV. Of those PCs in peoples home, I > would be surprised if more than 1 third are used to watch TV - most people > have a TV for that job. That means that less than 1 sixth of PCs are used > to watch TV. I also don't think many of those PC TV watchers actually > watch 1 channel while recording 1 or 2 others - there are dedicated boxes > that do this job much better and easier. > > I agree with your spec statement, just not the % of users implied. I'm not sure of the actual specs exactly but don't you require something reasonably quick just to watch 1 full high def movie? I think a guy at work here had something around 2.6ghz or 2.8ghz that wasn't up to the task. Also I would think that most of the PCs at work would have been used to watch a video of some sort at some stage Although there isn't really a lot to argue about, I think the OP is correct in that most PCs were more than powerful enough 5 years ago for most users and all the new power is mainly used by MS bloat. > >
From: VanguardLH on 4 Mar 2010 19:21 nobody > wrote: > VanguardLH wrote: >> You think you need that 3GHz dual- or >> quad-core processor with 4GB, or more, of system memory to run a word >> processor (when then used to run back in DOS in under 640K on old P1 >> processors running at 100MHz)? > > Methinks you are mixing generations here. > > P-ones @ 100 megahurts were usually running Windows. M# Office won't do > diddly in 640K. Did I mention Microsoft Office? No, I said "word processor". Remember Wordstar (both DOS and Windows versions)? Wordstar 3.3 was written for hosts with just 128KB of system memory. I don't know what the later DOS and Windows versions for Wordstar required for memory. Xywrite worked on a host with 384KB. Word for DOS 3.1 ran on a host with 256KB. I didn't feel like wasting my time in my prior reply to have to prove what I know I did over 20 years ago on a PC. I remember paying somewhere around $2500 for an IBM PC-AT around 1984 with 640KB and also had a word processor (don't remember which) along with Multiplan, a spreadsheet program. I don't recall how much I spent on a full-size memory card to get all the way up to a whopping total of 2MB. That was back using an Intel 8088 (which got replaced with a NEC V20) and having to buy a separate math coprocessor. Yes, I was single-tasking under DOS but I did word processing, too. My point was that typical applications found on consumer-grade hosts do not require the high-speed CPUs and gobs of memory that users are demanding for their computers. The computer is waiting eons between the keystrokes when a user is typing in their document (whether using a word processor or sending e-mail) and is dying of eternal boredom while waiting for a user to read that same document.
From: Mickel on 4 Mar 2010 19:39
"VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:hmpiqh$5af$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Did I mention Microsoft Office? No, I said "word processor". Remember > Wordstar (both DOS and Windows versions)? Wordstar 3.3 was written for > hosts with just 128KB of system memory. I don't know what the later DOS > and > Windows versions for Wordstar required for memory. Xywrite worked on a > host > with 384KB. Word for DOS 3.1 ran on a host with 256KB. > > I didn't feel like wasting my time in my prior reply to have to prove what > I > know I did over 20 years ago on a PC. I remember paying somewhere around > $2500 for an IBM PC-AT around 1984 with 640KB and also had a word > processor > (don't remember which) along with Multiplan, a spreadsheet program. I > don't > recall how much I spent on a full-size memory card to get all the way up > to > a whopping total of 2MB. That was back using an Intel 8088 (which got > replaced with a NEC V20) and having to buy a separate math coprocessor. > > Yes, I was single-tasking under DOS but I did word processing, too. My > point was that typical applications found on consumer-grade hosts do not > require the high-speed CPUs and gobs of memory that users are demanding > for > their computers. The computer is waiting eons between the keystrokes when > a > user is typing in their document (whether using a word processor or > sending > e-mail) and is dying of eternal boredom while waiting for a user to read > that same document. I think though if you went back to using such systems you would be amazed at how basic they are now compared to new stuff. |