Whatever happened to our hobby?

[fishy_fiz]

While I did prefer the early80 through mid 90's in some ways I dont thinks things are as drastically different as people recall. The main differences now are that there are big businesses offering general computing devices (including "pcs") that arent soley aimed at enthusiasts. There's plenty of interesting computer stuff out there if a person is interested to look a little (much like we had to in the "old days"). Additionally hardware has gotten so cheap and powerful that there's few occasions, or indeed opportunites to come up with something that stands out, which makes "alternative" hardware often redundant.... why create hardware that's more expensive, soley to do stuff that can be done on existing, cheaper hardware, and better?
Evolution I believe plays a big part in why things can appear stale. Having said this though I think interesting things can still be done with existing/"generic" hardware. The last decade or so evolved things, now is probably a good time for someone to present things a little differently and/or think outside the box.
Even outside of that though there's plenty of good hobby computing around. There's parallels for pretty much everything that came before. There's good, hobby languages (blitz and dark basic are basically, err,... blitz, and AMOS Pro). More serious languages are still available, and often cheaper and more powerful than what came before. Free creativity software can be many times more powerful/functional than it used to be, fpga is becoming accessible to Joe Public, many homebrew consoles are available cheaply and so on and so forth. I think the problem is people as much as the computer industry itself.

[J-Golden]

Congrats on using your enter key once in that mess, but it wasn't enough to make it readable.

Okay, really?  You keep harassing others when they write harsh, disparaging and/or off-topic replies and you throw this out?

I'm sure you have something to contriblute, so lets hear it!:afro:

[antonvaltaz]

It's interesting that with all the rise of tablets, smartphones, netbooks etc you keep getting articles in the mainstream press about the 'death of the desktop computer'. I think what is starting to happen is that for people who aren't actually at all interested in computers as such, they will more and more use other devices for their online shopping, banking, social networking, etc. Meanwhile people who are actually interested in computers 'proper' will carry on using them. In some ways it will revert back.

I don't think that there is necessarily less around for computer hobbyists, it just seems like it sometimes as it is so swamped under all the Facebook etc crap.

[vidarh]

It's interesting that with all the rise of tablets, smartphones, netbooks etc you keep getting articles in the mainstream press about the 'death of the desktop computer'. I think what is starting to happen is that for people who aren't actually at all interested in computers as such, they will more and more use other devices for their online shopping, banking, social networking, etc. Meanwhile people who are actually interested in computers 'proper' will carry on using them. In some ways it will revert back.

I think we *will* see the death of the "desktop" computer, just not as quickly as they think.

What's important to realize is that this is the death of the *form factor*: Eventually no more big bulky boxes that's stuck in a single location.

My cellphone is now far more powerful than my desktop from just a few years ago. New cellphones come with HDMI out in many cases. Wireless HDMI is on the horizon. Bluetooth keyboards and mice. In a couple of years time, for *most* people, a monitor and keyboard with wireless connection to their phone will be sufficiently powerful to do whatever they want. Even for hobbyists. Even laptops are being threatened by this and pads (see for example the Asus Eee Pad Transformer, and whatever that other one that was announced that was a screen, keyboard and extra battery that you slotted your cellphone into to use as a laptop)0

Even in the "do it yourself" arena, look at the Natami and Replay boards. See how tiny they are. I don't remember the precise dimensions of the Natami, but the Replay is about 1/3 the size of a MiniITX board. Another few years and you'll probably be able to put together powerful FPGA powered machines small enough to fit the shell of a current cellphone.

Storage is rapidly exceeding what most people need in tiny packages. My phone has 32GB, and that 32GB card is smaller than the nail on my little finger. Higher capacities in the same form factor are on the way. If I want to store movies I can buy several TB of storage in an external drive smaller than the smallest desktop I've ever owned, and it's getting smaller (or bigger capacity, or both).

Give it a few years, and 99%+ of computer users will have their computing needs *and* their storage needs met by computers smaller than a cellphone, and will only have larger form factors when/where the form factor makes a difference (e.g. tablets for the large screen; laptops or "laptop shells" for keyboard/screen combo)  or if they have specialist needs or are being contrarian.

At that point, does it make sense to talk about "desktops"? If the only connection your computer needs is the occasional charging cable, and it fits in your pocket, why chain it to your desk? Maybe you'll keep a large screen and a keyboard at your desk, but no reason to leave the computer there.

The remaining 1% or so (of course the actual percentage is just a wild guess) will still have plenty of opportunity to buy boxes to stuff full of components, but your needs are going to have to be pretty weird for you to need them, and even then you might find that such needs can increasingly be met as "expansion boxes" wirelessly connected to your machine the way network storage can be today.

Doesn't mean that's what they'll all buy or have that quickly - it'll take at least a decade, probably longer, to shift desktops fully out of the mainstream, but it's pretty much inevitable that it'll happen.

But keep in mind that desktops are *already* on the way out. They make up a rapidly shrinking minority of computer-like devices consumers buy, between laptops, netbooks, smart phones, pads etc. And the ones that do get sold are shrinking and/or getting baked into the screen. Last time I went to the local PC World store, I don't remember seeing anything larger than a Mini-ITX style box, and the most space was taken up by laptops and combined computers and screens and cellphones. Of course you can buy bigger ones still, and will "forever", but that's increasingly being relegated to specialist stores.

That's not to say that lots of people won't have computers they keep in one place, but mostly for convenience rather than any need to have boxes big enough to not fit in their pockets or bags.

[Daedalus]

The high-end PC gaming market will, I'm sure, keep the desktop / tower form factor going for quite some time yet. That bleeding edge will always be populated by insanely powerful devices requiring bulky heatsinks, fans and power supplies. For normal use, yes, things are moving in the "pocket computer" direction, but no matter how powerful these mobile CPUs and GPUs get, you'll always be able to make them go faster by increasing the clock speed / number of cores / number of buses and adding a massive heatsink. And I'm sure there'll be a market for that for a long time.

[HenryCase]

@vidarh

whatever that other one that was announced that was a screen, keyboard and extra battery that you slotted your cellphone into to use as a laptop)0

I think you're referring to the Motorola Atrix:
http://www.engadget.com/motorola/atrix-4g-review/

@Daedalus
I agree. There is still a place for the desktop PC form factor, though it's clear the laptop form factor will remain more popular. For example, PCs in the workplace; whilst there is some competition from thin clients, desktop PCs still make the most sense for many companies.

[golem]

I too lament the passing of this early age of computing but it was inevitable that a common standard had to be decided upon (enter Bill Gates, Intel and Microsoft). I think without the global rise of Microsoft the internet would have never got out of the bedrooms of geeks and computers would have remained fragmented and specialist. I have been in employment for the past 13 years largely thanks to the success of Windows.

[persia]

We're seeing some of the '80s in the tablet world, there's iPad, Android, Playboy, even MS Windows.  Tablets run on a dozen different and often incompatible processors.  Some have GPS or 3G.  The number and nature of the off screen buttons vary.  

But to answer your question, computers are no longer a hobby, everyone uses them, at least in the developed world.  Back in the day, a manufacturer could design something from scratch, you can't do that today.  It would be silly to think that a small company could possibly design a better graphics card than NVidia with it's teams of engineers.  Today's graphics cards have more processing power and RAM than a mainframe did in the '80s.  As some one said, it's like cars, or mobile phones or refrigerators.  People buy computers to do stuff, like photos, video, surf the web, write books.  

The computer has grown up, moved out of it's parent's garage, got a job, had a family and in general taken on responsibilities.

[antonvaltaz]

At that point, does it make sense to talk about "desktops"? If the only connection your computer needs is the occasional charging cable, and it fits in your pocket, why chain it to your desk? Maybe you'll keep a large screen and a keyboard at your desk, but no reason to leave the computer there.

That's interesting, I hadn't really thought about that.

I think you're probably right, but I guess there will still be people who want to sit down at a desk properly and tinker for several hours at a time, with a proper screen and full-size keyboard. So maybe it's better to talk about desktop workstations for your computer, rather than desktop computers per se, but I do think they'll always be around, not just for home-office workers but also for computer hobbyists.

Following on from your points, did you see David Braben's tiny £15 ARM-based computer, designed to be attached to a full-size keyboard, mouse and monitor, precisely for the purpose of getting schoolkids to play around with computers as a hobby?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13292450

[antonvaltaz]

But to answer your question, computers are no longer a hobby, everyone uses them, at least in the developed world...  As some one said, it's like cars, or mobile phones or refrigerators.

I think that the comparison with cars in particular is very apt. I use a car every day but I don't care about cars at all, to me they're just a thing to get me from A to B.

But other people I know read car magazines, attend car shows, watch car-related TV shows, participate in car-related online forums - whether vintage or modern. For them, cars are their hobby.

The fact that most people who use cars don't consider it a hobby, doesn't mean that it's not a hobby for some people. Isn't that the same with computers?

EDIT: And I guess the question is, now that computers (including tablets, smartphones etc) are mainstream, are there more or less people for whom computing is a hobby compared to the '80s? My guess is that there are just as many, if not more.

[persia]

@antonvaltaz

Nail, hammer, head.

[TheBilgeRat]

For example, PCs in the workplace; whilst there is some competition from thin clients, desktop PCs still make the most sense for many companies.

I was thinking about this and wondering if this too will end up going back to the days of dumb terminals logged into content providers (not a vax anymore tho ) that allow access to a set of tools depending on your needs and your business checkbook.  Certain businesses will run their own servers if the need for security is really paramount, but I think you'll see the costs for maintaining and operating computer power in your business drop dramatically as the cost of rolling out new platforms, updating licenses, and maintenance are all wrapped up in a monthly fee.  Then, on your end for hardware, its just replacing monitors as they fry or keyboards as they break.

[vidarh]

The high-end PC gaming market will, I'm sure, keep the desktop / tower form factor going for quite some time yet.

For a while. But we're not that far off a situation where realtime raytracing becomes cost effective, and raytracing has the very beneficial property that the rendering time doesn't explode as the number of objects increase (but rather with resolution, which is growing quite slowly and is getting close to the point where human eyesight won't notice further increases), unlike with rasterization.

Once that happens, further increases in the power of the computer or GPU's will pretty quickly only marginally improve graphics, as you can keep increasing polygon (or shape, as raytracing can also handle things like spheres etc. cheaply) count dramatically without requiring large performance increases, and the performance improvements will mainly do things like increase the number of refractions that affect the image, which have very little effect on most types of scenes.

That'll take a lot of the incentive for more powerful computers out of the gaming market. It's only so much computing power there's any point in wasting on AI etc..

I'm not doubting that there'll still be some games pushing the limits and taking advantage of really high end gear, but fewer and fewer people will care. In terms of CPU cores, most modern games have trouble exploiting even quad core CPU's fully, and while I'm sure that'll change, it's changing slower than computing power and number of cores is growing, so once the growth on GPU demands subside, I don't think gaming will drive all that much demand for power anymore.

The high end gaming market is already being marginalized anyway - most people are either casual gamers (e.g. satisfied with flash games in a browser or similar) or game on consoles, which are hardly cutting edge performance wise.

[vidarh]

So maybe it's better to talk about desktop workstations for your computer, rather than desktop computers per se, but I do think they'll always be around, not just for home-office workers but also for computer hobbyists.

I agree with that. After several years of only using laptops I'm about to get a large screen and keyboard hooked up at home, exactly because I'm more productive on a large screen. At work, I do use a laptop, but connected to a big screen and separate keyboard. I think that's essential for serious use. But quite soon it hopefully won't require the big bulky separate box any more.

I particularly look forward to getting to a point where I have all my data everywhere (even when the network isn't available)

Following on from your points, did you see David Braben's tiny £15 ARM-based computer, designed to be attached to a full-size keyboard, mouse and monitor, precisely for the purpose of getting schoolkids to play around with computers as a hobby?

Yes. Want it. Even though I don't really have any uses for it (though perhaps someone will port AROS to it...). It'll be fun to tinker with, though my phone has more memory and a faster ARM chip already

[Franko]

but why aren't there more of us? What happened to make people no longer become interested in computers, but simply treat them as another appliance?

To be honest I just look at my nephew and his friends all around the age range of 22 to 26, most of them have been to uni studying all sorts of scientific and even computer related subjects. All of them are just like each other, a bedroom full of consoles and PC's but not one of them does any sort of programming or creating audio / artwork etc... (well unless you count making MP3's)

All they do is play non stop all these modern 3D style games that all look and play the same to me, or just gibber absolute keech to each other on facebook and the likes about these games...

Whenever I used to suggest to them why not try writing you're own programmes or create some music or artwork, the answer I usually got back goes along the lines of "Why !!! when someone else writes the stuff for us and creates the music we like to listen too, why would I want to bother doing something boring like that and anyway I don't have the time..." (I don't bother asking anymore)...

To me it would seem that it's all down to the simple fact that since they were born and just kids, computers were already in most of their homes (usually the dads) and to them it's just taken for granted that these are nothing more than another passive method of entertainment just like a TV set or music system...

Of course it could also be that they're just lazy gits with no imaginations, but I wont go into that right now...

[beakster2]

It's the way of the modern world, not just a computer thing.

Cars are the same, 20 years ago people knew how to fix their own cars and the guys who worked at the parts stores were knowledgeable and friendly, now its all big stores like Halfords where you get some kid who only knows nothing about mechanics and only about putting big wheels and a loud exhaust on it.

Music is the same, once it was all local record stores where you could spend the day listening to a stack of vinyl and chatting the the sales guys about the newest releases.  Now its all an international money making machine with big impersonal stores and internet downloads.  (Same thing for books).

I think we just need to be happy that we were lucky enough to experience the beginnings of the computer revolution in the 80s.  Computers have just become an ordinary consumer product (like music and cars for the most part) and hence a lot of the magic has gone, at least from what we see on a popular consumer level.  But if you dig a bit deeper you will always find the niche genres where there is still exciting/nostalgic/innovative stuff happening that you can get involved in.