TechSpot

The future of computing...

By SuperCheetah
Mar 7, 2002
Post New Reply
  1. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,657   +323

    Re: Re: The future of computing...

    4000x4000 on what size screen. I'm sure I can't tell jaggies @ 1024x768 on a 2" screen.
     
  2. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    A lot of games now use more than 650mb of data, means they copy the entire contents of the CD into the HDD. Next time we may need HDD so that we could store all the games which requres 650mb (And surely you do not have just ONE game?)
     
  3. Ai Hate

    Ai Hate TS Rookie Posts: 321

    Re: Hey!

    i meant like palms. you could switch it on and use it right away. and i think that's where the computer industry is headed anyway.
    i don't think they're trying to make a computer being able to do everything, but rather integrating computers into everything (household stuff).
    ie. internet TV, internet fridge and automated homes.
     
  4. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    And quite often they are compressed, so they'll take up even more space on your hdd...

    I'm well aware of that... (I have over 7Gb of games currently on this rig)

    What I meant was that a program doesn't have to be so big... By optimizing the code, and doing quite a lot of the programming in assembler, you'll get a smaller program which runs faster...

    Now I'm not saying that all programs should be assembler only, but that programmers should spend some more time optimizing and shrinking the code...

    F.ex. MS Word 97 doesn't have to take about 90% of my cpu time when all I'm doing is writing an essay... It should suffice with 10% (which is ~140Mhz)...

    .02$
     
  5. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    Re:

    Maybe because game developers knew that the capacity of modern hard disk drives are increasing, which is why they choose to do that. However, they didn't know that mp3 took up all the extra space on my hard disk :rolleyes:. I don't buy games that often, but I still sure hope that I won't have to reserve 650mb of disk space of the next game I'm buying~!
     
  6. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    I think I agree with Ai Hate when he says he hopes to see a computer be able to boot without taking 30 seconds or 2 minutes depending on the rig.

    Also, I agree with the fact that more programmers should take into account optimizing code instead of writing more code. I'm trying to learn some assembly code to write a few simple programs in. I posted earlier talking about a operating system that should be written as close to assembly code as possible so the system will perform at its optimum level. I feel that someone should at least make an attempt at doing this to compete with Microsoft.
     
  7. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    The problem is, who? Creating an OS isn't that easy. You'll need a team of dedicated professionals... and you need other companies to recognise your OS... it wun be easy :dead:
     
  8. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 6,504   +6

    I agree. We put so much effort into chucking more features into new software and bloating its size as opposed to rethinking how a program operates. Every year MS Office gets better and better but never any easier for the newbiez to use, paperclip or no paperclip.
     
  9. Ai Hate

    Ai Hate TS Rookie Posts: 321

    we are getting there...

    well, i know. but i'm talking about sth ideal here. where i want the industry to head to. i know it'll take some time, but windows CE and palm OSes has done it, haven't they?
     
  10. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Re: we are getting there...

    Yes, it's an ideal... One which should be more or less possible to achieve...
    Today it's possible to rewrite *nix to assembly... (It's just one big hassle, but possible...)

    And with (still speaking ideals here) M$ being forced to remove ie, mp etc. they could (first) fix the code, and then translate/rewrite it into assebler, to get a faster and more stable OS, which should then smoke the others out of the water...

    .02$
     
  11. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    I know that it will that many skilled professionals and many long hours of programming, but like Ai Hate says it's just what I want to happen. Microsoft does a good job with Windows but they focus too much on expansion, and not enough on speed and security.

    All I'm asking for is for a startup company or a stable OS like Linux to rise and compete with Microsoft in a home user environment.
     
     
  12. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,605   +110

    Bells and Whistles :rolleyes:
     
  13. lokem

    lokem TS Rookie Posts: 773

    As a matter of fact, a lot of skilled programmers are programming long hours as we speak. Those who are coding for Linux/BSD/etc ;)

    IMO, the reason why MS is expanding so much is to grab a piece of the rest of the industry apart from the desktop market; namely embedded, server and handhelds. They would want to be in control in every corner you turn.
     
  14. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    Some companies just tried to control the market. M$ trying to manupilate the OS world and *In my friend*'s opinion, Intel trying to control the CPU world. While it's natural that companies wanted to control the market for their own benefits, techonology should be openly shared so that opinions from all fields can furthur advance it right?
     
  15. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    Monopolization is inevitable in competition as companies try to play God and control the market. Microsoft is only the newest example of this phenomena. That is a con of capitalism that we all have to deal with.

    I would probably try to do the same thing if it were my company. How you would keep yourself from expanding if you were making the kind of money Gates is making?
     
  16. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    That's right. That's why we shouldn't complain about whatever whatever company trying to manipulate the market, cuz' u'll do it too if u were them. Sometimes we mustn't really critise companies so much... they are trying to earn a living also...
     
  17. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    Even though we say that monopolization is inevitable, we have to remember that it is competition that drives technology. Where would we be without a company like AMD pressuring market dominating companies like Intel, or the same for Linux and Windows. This constant pressure is what drives companies to produce better products and not to simply lie back and make second rate products.

    We need all these small 3rd party programs to stay alive and continue making products superior to Microsoft's generic versions, such as the System Restore (copy of Norton ghost, Powerquest, etc.) and Messenger, and the list goes on and on.

    I say long live competition and capitalism!!! :)
     
  18. uncleel

    uncleel TS Rookie Posts: 1,145

    long live capitalism!

    IBM is using Linux for their Server market. But what needs to happen is a major manufacturer to start using Linux for home pc's.
    Lindows® also looks promising; the ability to use M$ software like Office is a plus. Star Office is less than comparable unfortunately. There's not enough competition for other \/\/indoZe software
     
  19. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    I would love to see a major company incorporate Linux into their home PC's! IBM did the right thing, I believe, by switching to Linux which outperforms Microsoft in networking performance.

    I am interested in seeing what Lindows has to offer, for it does seem to be able to contend with Windows by solving the major compatability issues that has doomed StarOffice.
     
  20. lokem

    lokem TS Rookie Posts: 773

    Most of the time it's not the networking performance that counts, it's the usability as a desktop machine. That's why MS still has the upper hand in that market now.
     
  21. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    Exactly!!! While Linux has the upper hand in certain areas, Microsoft still has the upper hand in user friendliness. This is why I wish someone would produce a user friendly Linux that normal home users can use that is on par with Windows or Mac OS X.

    Let's just hope that this happens soon! :)
     
  22. lokem

    lokem TS Rookie Posts: 773

    While Mac OS X has a beautiful UI to please users; the hardware to run it is too expensive. Even the iMac is way higher than anything that I'll spend on a normal PC!

    Then again, if Apple changes their mind to port OSX to the PC platform, things will change dramatically... Doubt that'll happen though.
     
  23. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    I agree completely. The Mac computers are way overpriced. I also agree that running the OS X on a PC platform would be great, but the architechture is completely backwards so it slows your computer down dramatically. You can run OS X on a PC using an emulator, but like I said it is very slow so there is no real benefit.

    I do love the fact that alot of Macs come with the superdrive with I wish the PC world would adopt.
     
  24. lokem

    lokem TS Rookie Posts: 773

    What do you mean by the architecture is completely backwards? Has this gotta do with the fact they're using the FreeBSD kernel for OSX? I agree that if you run OS X on a PC via an emulator, it would definitely be REALLY slow. But if it was ported to the x86 platform/architecture, I think it will run just as fast as the other OSes.

    Aren't SuperDrives just DVD-R drives?
     
  25. SuperCheetah

    SuperCheetah TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 868

    The superdrives are CDR, CDRW, DVD-R, and DVD-RW all in one drive. For a PC a DVD-RW costs about 400 dollars by itself.

    The architecture is different meaning that PC run little indian artichecture meaning if you have four number 1 2 3 4 it reads them like 4 3 2 1, while on an Apple the architecture is big indian the opposite of little indian as the apple will read 1 2 3 4 as 1 2 3 4 in that order.

    This is why it is so slow on an emulator because the emulator has to reverse every single operation done by the computer.
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.