Which way do you prefer or "Have it your way."

[royalcrown]

Just wondering what you folks think.

Do you think it'd be better to have a closed hardware platform as the majority, or are you on the side of the typical PC with a mish mash of parts ?

I'll go first by incessantly rambling on and on, thereby boring you all to no end.

I decided to get into Amiga after building my PC a few months ago. Typical PC with all the higher end crap, ended up costing a BUNCH. I always wanted to own such a ridiculous machine, but now that I own it, am totally bored with it.

There seems to be nothing really good to do (as a home user) on such a machine. Many games that would use it are just over hyped crap. Short of Arma 3, there seems to be NOTHING coming out that needs a massive machine. Thanks to CONSOLES, a lot of the stuff is also just crappy ports. Even what is coming out seems to be more just point and shoot crap.

I think that all this massive power is going to waste and crappy programming is tolerated. Going to a single unified hardware configuration has some advantages in this day and age:

1. BUG FIXES - We might all have bugs, but then everyone would get fixes sooner as 1 fix would work for everyone.

2. Programming could be made more efficient - More optimized compilers and dev tools.

3. Programmers could optimize apps like no ones business - If a C64 could pound an IBM 5150 into the ground @ 1mhz due to integration and optimization, what could we do with a Core I7 and GTX 680 or Radeon 7990 platform ?

Software  developers could spend more time being creative with less platforms to have to master, and as the machines got pushed to their limits, things would have to be done more efficiently (see above).

4. Machines would be worth something when you sold them.

5. No more "My 'puter is better than yours.."

IMO old machines were more "fun" to use even taking into account the fact that that it wasn't all done before.

If it were up to me, I'd take whatever is a really high end platform and freeze it for 5 years as the standard pc. I owned an IMac till recently and IMO there are benefits to standardized hardware (now ppl should be free to know the inner workings however). I also owned a C64 and so I can see how programming efficiently can work.

IMO Jack Tramiel would have preferred the current PC ecosystem of cheap parts from everywhere.

[royalcrown]

I thought about this for awile, and I can honestly say I can't reach a conclusion.
Today there are no PCs that can not be customized.
The only thing that comes close to a fixed configuration is a console.

I think we should go to one standard PC config is my point, not low end either, high end and squeeze the most out of it we can.

[royalcrown]

Why? The present system allows everybody to buy as much or as little in the way of hardware horsepower as they need, instead of forcing low-end users to overspend and constraining high-end users to less than they could otherwise make use of. And who would set such a standard, and why should anybody listen to them? It's just idiotic.

What we could really use is for software developers to start coding efficiently again, so that low-end systems are more usable and high-end systems get the full benefit of their hardware might instead of wasting it on bloat.

IMO commodorejohn...and only my opinion here, if we standardized and dumped the lowest of the low, for instance, it would raise the minimum standards for software quality. Kinda like android when you buy the super cheap phone, it doesn't run the "good apps".

I actually think the price could drop some if there was only one platform manufactured. Instead of spending R&D and time on the NEXT thing, designs could be improved as well as manufacturing, thereby lowering the cost somewhat.

Yes, picking the standard would be difficult, and we should leave it to the engineers and not marketing...hehe.

[royalcrown]

But even Amigas vary, type of processor, amounts of memory, different hard drives (and interfaces), expansion buses (Zorro II, III, ISA, PCI), video (OCS, ECS, AGA, RTG). etc.

9

True, but the base model was pretty much the same so devs could code to a lowest common denominator. I mean an A1000 was an A1000 except PAL vs NTSC, same with the base A2000.

Might make it easier to make use of modern resources and raise the bar if we did not have millions of configurations.

[royalcrown]

And, let's see, how has that worked out for the aforementioned Android devices? Oh, right, everybody who buys the cheap phones gets shafted, everybody who knows about this ahead of time winds up paying more than they otherwise would purely so they won't get shafted, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the actual quality of software. Yeah, that sounds like an arrangement we need more of.


Yeah, that's totally going to happen.

Um, you do know that the reason so much android software sucks is because devs have to cater to the lowest common denominator crap phones right ?!?!

[royalcrown]

Here you go, fixed hardware, open source development friendly and cheap too.

A very 'Amiga like' business model in fact.

Ouya

If only it wasn't ...ack...android...

(I just prefer software written for the hardware vs a virtual environment. I'm not a programmer and still know what a resource hog java and dalvik (the android HAL ?) are.

[royalcrown]

And, let's see, how has that worked out for the aforementioned Android devices? Oh, right, everybody who buys the cheap phones gets shafted, everybody who knows about this ahead of time winds up paying more than they otherwise would purely so they won't get shafted, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the actual quality of software. Yeah, that sounds like an arrangement we need more of.


Yeah, that's totally going to happen.

Okay, I volunteer to pick then, with you co-picking 50/50. I say we meet at the Duluth Grill and write the specs on the back of a napkin

[royalcrown]

@commodorejohn

Are you saying that such a thing would not raise the QUALITY of software in general ? While fixed hardware may be bad, the payoff would be better apps I think.

AFAIK people buy a comp to run apps, so this good would outweigh the "forced" evil of standardization.

I think the price would drop enough to take away much of the sting of overspending.

It's not like were eating little kittens or anything

It might happen anyway as speed increases are starting to really hit a cost wall, and soon physics.

[royalcrown]

I think the point is that the PC isn't a platform like a C64, Amiga etc. A PC is a bunch of cards stuffed together which may or may not run Windows. You can't standardise the platform because there's no platform to standardise!
If you wanted to make everything use the same standard and the same hardware then you'd need one company to take over what it means to be a PC, and as the PC succeeded because of its open nature, that's just not going to happen.

Not only that but it would be a terrible thing. I know what you mean about how much more we could do with an i7 but if we didn't have an open platform, there would have been no competition. With no competition, progress would be far far slower... we'd probably be using Pentium 2s or something still!

Look at the speed of evolution of the Amiga from the 1000 to the 4000 and apply that to the IBM PC/XT.

Fierce competition in the open PC market is what defines the PC and the technology behind it. Take that away and watch it stagnate.

Just my 2p.

I guess it boils down to this for me personally:

I'd rather be using a P2 being pushed to the limit and good software vs a monster system and a ton of so-so software.

Right now I have an I7 with a GTX 680, dual SSD and 32 gigs. Never has a PC been so boring for lack of anything compelling or fun to run on it. Nothing fun  really needs this much computer. At least older platforms were enjoyable (to me) to use.

[royalcrown]

I think you'd actually find a P2 with a Riva TNT set-up would be rather less fun than you think, no matter how far it was pushed.
Remember that although a lot of code is lazily written for the big games, the hardware has a very efficient design. That's why games still look so good.

I think you're absolutely bang on about modern games being boring - the only PC games I buy are ones with "Civilization" and "Red Alert" in the titles, these days - but I think you're misplacing the blame.

It's kind of like saying that modern chart music is rubbish because we have CDs now. It's not, it's because chart music (and PC games) have become commodity items rushed out by large corporations for as little time and money and as large a return as they can garner. The fact that PCs are very powerful is nothing to do with the quality of the game - there's nothing to stop a coder writing really efficient, powerful code on an i7 - but even if he did that he might get a few frames per second more.... and a few fps more does not a good game make. In other words, instead of rubbish running at 60fps, he'd have rubbish running at 63fps.

That's why I have a PS3 for the occasional bash of Warhawk or Skyrim, and I have Amigas, C64s, Sinclairs, the rest... for when I actually want to play something new (to me).

Luckily I have a really interesting PC. It's my bridgeboard in my Amiga. It plays UFO: Enemy Unknown and Ultima VII, and that's all that matters.

That's my point. Software is being turned out as fast as possible instead of turned out as fast as possible while doing it well, or making any old crap to sell vs something interesting. That is what is making pc's boring as well. I think that if we froze the platform, devs could better learn to "use what we got, and instead of learning new api's and tools, use that time to make better programs.

Music is crap now because kids think video game noises from a sega are music nowadays and strippers = talent. Kids don't have a frame of reference to know talent vs crap.

[royalcrown]

Yeah, I think we're both thinking the same thing here, about modern games (and music ).

But honestly, if you were to freeze the platform all that would happen is the games would just get worse (because most of the really big games are supported by people like nvidia and AMD to show off their hardware - take the hardware away and take away the support) and also the PC platform would die completely as a gaming platform because the consoles would continue to evolve.

I am not saying freeze forever, like 4 years or so, so consoles would still be far behind

On a side note I just went to amiga.com instead of org accidentally and saw the site...noooooooo, it burns !

[royalcrown]

To the original question I have to say that I am very much undecided. One of the things I liked about my first Amiga was that everything worked. I'de buy a game, put in the floppy and voila. Awesome. However, as time moved on some stuff required, or at least would benefit from extra hardware. But still, it was a small enough amount of upgrades to understand all of the options in depth. I liked how all of that worked and continues to work.

I used to like my PC having loads of options too. My 486 had so many bays and slots it was silly. As times gone on I find I use less bays and slots, I simply don't need them. The average pc mobo these days has built in everything with the exception of graphics (sometimes). Add a graphics card if you need one and what else do you need? An SSD and an optical drive maybe? I hardly use my optical drive these days, just an SSD and a card reader would do. As for upgrading the CPU and RAM, how often does that end up with a mobo replacement? It's often cheaper to get a newer mobo and CPU than finding a faster CPU for an older socket.

Even that once huge hard disk, or even RAID that a true power might use is probably better inserted into a NAS enclosure for convenient network access.

I guess what I'm saying is that even though the pc platform is very open, market forces for the typical user make a lot of our choices for us. Often to the point that it might as well been a closed platform in the first place.

A extra smothering of irony can be found in the jailbreaking of consoles of course. Closed platform it may be but someone will always find a way of opening up a console.

As to whatever is the best or worse approach, I just don't know. I just look forward to whatever it is memristor will do to the market, that will be fun.

Nice avatar my friend

[royalcrown]

I am surprised noone has mentioned the steam box. This seems to take the advantages of consoles being fixed and PC's being open into a single platform. Sounds good to me. I'm thinking of buying one when they come out.

I think it is going to be more of another console vs a computer. Personally, I hate having to be online to play stuff, that and steam getting hacked, or wanting to embed itself in my os like symantec.

[royalcrown]

I built mine to be as quiet as my Imac, which  raised the price to Imac territory...lol

[royalcrown]

ur so awesome!  I love your philosophy!




I don't care how big the case is but I would tend toward a larger case so it can have more drive bays.

My old firefox pc from 2004 broke down recently so I suddenly needed a new puter and I bought a random Acer computer from NewEgg thinking that modern computers would be super quiet....  well... it is totally silent.  Except the hard drive makes this chirp sound sometimes, kind of like a click.  Its really noticeable.  Just some idiosyncracy of the 2TB hard drive.

If the computer had not made that chirpy noise then my friend would have bought the exact same model of computer.  He is like me he wants something quiet.

I had absolutely no way to figure out how to buy a silent pc at a reasonable price.  There were websites advertising silent pcs but they were really tremendously expensive and were lacking various features like VGA ports or PS/2 ports.  I am certainly not paying top dollar for a computer that does not even have PS/2 ports!

So anyway I ended up getting this random Acer mass market puter and am having a "meh" experience with it.

I should have asked for your advice.  There it went again, that loud chirpy noise.

Really the way to fix that is get an SSD...no more noise.