What if they made a CPU and nobody came?
Thursday, June 27, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Those of you who have been around PC's for awhile can remember when every megahertz made a difference. Heck, on my 386SX which came with the new "shadow bios" I would fool around with the bios just to get a slight improvement in performance.
Now, CPUs are at speeds greater than 2 GIGA-hertz. But outside of gaming and rendering, does anyone really care? And even on games, a good 3D care will make more difference than upgrading your CPU in many cases. I went to a Geforce 4 on my 1 Ghz machine and can now play the game just fine with all the goodies turned on.
It seems to be a struggle across the board to get hardware makers to stop focusing on games. The horse is dying. Even video card makers focus almost exclusively on making games run slightly faster (as if anyone is going to notice GTA 3 running at 150 frames instead of 140 frames per sec). All the while the CPU makers and video card makers have largely ignored what software developers can do on the desktop if they would just support the existing APIs better. WindowFX 2 can do effects that dwarf what is on MacOS X's Aqua UI. But it requires that the video card makers support (fix) their drivers.
This seems like an obvious area for CPU makers then. If they could put features into their chips that could be used to enhance say Windows XP effects APIs then that might give people a reason to look at new machines. Most people don't play games. The idea of people upgrading their machines purely for game reasons has long faded (mid 90s trend). Today, the desktop experience matters. The more accelerated graphics are in ways that can be displayed on the desktop, the more new ways that data and information can be displayed and manipulated on screen. Even the impressive features of WindowFX 2 are nothing compared to what could be done if there was more acceleration available.
One thing Intel and AMD could do is support a subset of DirectX that would be applicable on the desktop and make sure that Windows XP could utilize it. Then, if the video drivers aren't supporting it, the CPU could accelerate it and give new reason to upgrade.
Until then, I'll stick with my 1Ghz setup at home until there's a good reason to upgrade...
Now, CPUs are at speeds greater than 2 GIGA-hertz. But outside of gaming and rendering, does anyone really care? And even on games, a good 3D care will make more difference than upgrading your CPU in many cases. I went to a Geforce 4 on my 1 Ghz machine and can now play the game just fine with all the goodies turned on.
It seems to be a struggle across the board to get hardware makers to stop focusing on games. The horse is dying. Even video card makers focus almost exclusively on making games run slightly faster (as if anyone is going to notice GTA 3 running at 150 frames instead of 140 frames per sec). All the while the CPU makers and video card makers have largely ignored what software developers can do on the desktop if they would just support the existing APIs better. WindowFX 2 can do effects that dwarf what is on MacOS X's Aqua UI. But it requires that the video card makers support (fix) their drivers.
This seems like an obvious area for CPU makers then. If they could put features into their chips that could be used to enhance say Windows XP effects APIs then that might give people a reason to look at new machines. Most people don't play games. The idea of people upgrading their machines purely for game reasons has long faded (mid 90s trend). Today, the desktop experience matters. The more accelerated graphics are in ways that can be displayed on the desktop, the more new ways that data and information can be displayed and manipulated on screen. Even the impressive features of WindowFX 2 are nothing compared to what could be done if there was more acceleration available.
One thing Intel and AMD could do is support a subset of DirectX that would be applicable on the desktop and make sure that Windows XP could utilize it. Then, if the video drivers aren't supporting it, the CPU could accelerate it and give new reason to upgrade.
Until then, I'll stick with my 1Ghz setup at home until there's a good reason to upgrade...
joetheblow
Reply #2 Saturday, June 29, 2002 2:09 AM
Reply #2 Saturday, June 29, 2002 2:09 AM
I was wondering about the drivers. I downloaded windowsFX 2.0 and to my suprise it did not work to well. I could see the stabibilty was better (way better) but I couldn't use so many features that I just took it of my computer. I looked at what was going on and found that it was the drivers. As new as my computer is, my drivers can not support 2.0. 1.0 atually work better!! I tried to download new drivers but I couldn;t find it. Not even the site that made it for my computer!!
I am not a gamer, but I have to say I do play with my Microsoft Train Simulator allot. I am glad I can turn on all the features and have almost no ploblems. I will be upgrading so I can have no problems.
I am not a gamer, but I have to say I do play with my Microsoft Train Simulator allot. I am glad I can turn on all the features and have almost no ploblems. I will be upgrading so I can have no problems.
berzerka
Reply #3 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:15 AM
Reply #3 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:15 AM
windowfx doesnt look all that useful, you can add some shadows and make windows transparent (why would u need to do that), im not impressed
craeonics
Reply #4 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:41 AM
Reply #4 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:41 AM
When someone mentions WindowFX I always think about the old name for WIndowBlinds.
But I don't care about cpu speed or hardware specs (typing this on a p75). I wish devs would take efficiency into account more than the "everyone's got a fast machine now, so forget about optimisation" approach.
But I don't care about cpu speed or hardware specs (typing this on a p75). I wish devs would take efficiency into account more than the "everyone's got a fast machine now, so forget about optimisation" approach.
migellito
Reply #5 Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:44 PM
Reply #5 Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:44 PM
actually, window fx is pretty cool. i appreciate the window transparency because i'm constantly taking notes off things, and i can use it to see through the notepad while i write.
Jafo
Reply #6 Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:45 PM
Reply #6 Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:45 PM
Currently my system is lagging with an old MoBo...Abit BX6....even kicks PC133 ram back to 100...1X AGP....4 slots give me a Gig of ram but a Slot1 P111/500 isn't the bee's knees for gaming any more.....maybe a few years ago...[the 500 was the second-fastest available at the time]. Now, I'm not too far off getting into the 2Gig range, with a MOBo to suit, a new Gig of faster ram, and chuck in a GeForce 4 for good measure.....GrandPrix 4 is on the horizon, and my current machine complains about GP3 as it is.... 
UBoB
Reply #7 Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM
Reply #7 Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM
Jafo, I sometimes think it would be cheaper if I opened a computer retail outlet. I'd always have the latest, *and*, my customers would pay for it! 
paxx
Reply #8 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:11 PM
Reply #8 Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:11 PM
Don't know about that. When I first got my P4 1.4 Ghz at work, I thought it could get any faster than that... It's been about 6 months now, and sadly I'm starting to get impatient again when it takes too long... I still find Photoshop takes too long to open, that my context menu doesn't popup fst enough, that sometimes it lags too much for no reason.
I think no computer is ever fast enough.
I think no computer is ever fast enough.
Jafo
Reply #9 Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:44 AM
Reply #9 Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:44 AM
paxx...always keep an old 386 in the spare room and crank it up from time to time to remind you of how fast the 'new' one really is....
Nico56
Reply #10 Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:33 AM
Reply #10 Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:33 AM
I have a 1.9ghz with PC800 RDRAM. I found that a lot of your speed comes from the speed of your graphics card combined with the memory. At work, I have a 1.7 with PC133, and I watched it take twice as long to do something than mine at home.
I also play top of the line games with a GeForce 2 TI, and I've found I have no problems.
I also play top of the line games with a GeForce 2 TI, and I've found I have no problems.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #11 Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:33 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:33 PM
i just pre-ordered the Matrox Parhelia for my older box which is a 700 mhz. We'll see how much better having a top of the line graphics card does to overall speed. I may end up swapping out my old proc and mobo to what i have on my work box just to have as much performance i can have until next month of course when a faster cpu comes out hehe.
SkinneRyan
Reply #12 Tuesday, July 2, 2002 2:24 AM
Reply #12 Tuesday, July 2, 2002 2:24 AM
i have a P3 700MHz, a voodoo 3 GFX card, and 256MB ram, and i go to a friends house, get on his computer P4, 2.6MHz, and some GFX card i've never heard of which sounds really fast, and 256MB ram (both of our computers are running windows XP, mine is Pro, his is Home). and when i play a game (such as half life) i don't even notice any difference. sure his loads faster, but only by a few seconds.
i've got another computer, it's a P1 with 233MHz, a voodoo 2 and 64MB ram and i put winXP on it (just because i felt like it, no other reason) and it was slow as hell. so i opened up the P3 700 took out a 64MB stick of ram , put it in the P1 and it's running only slightly slower than the P3.
needless to say, i went out and bought 128MB ram for the P3, and it's working faster now, but if i didn't do that "experiment" i wouldn't have noticed a difference.
but the title of this thread brings interesting thoughts to mind.
what if the first computer that was ever built was stolen or broken or something, and no one made any more computers?
would we even recognise the world?
or, going on the other side of the thought, what if someone bought a P4 4 GHz with 1 gig of ram, top of the line video card, etc... and went back in time (theoretically of course) to say, the 1930's and gave someone the computer, and taught him to use it, and how to make more, make upgrades, etc.
what would the world be like then? (a rhetoric question of course, but it would still be interesting to hear some opinions other than my own on the thought)
i've got another computer, it's a P1 with 233MHz, a voodoo 2 and 64MB ram and i put winXP on it (just because i felt like it, no other reason) and it was slow as hell. so i opened up the P3 700 took out a 64MB stick of ram , put it in the P1 and it's running only slightly slower than the P3.
needless to say, i went out and bought 128MB ram for the P3, and it's working faster now, but if i didn't do that "experiment" i wouldn't have noticed a difference.
but the title of this thread brings interesting thoughts to mind.
what if the first computer that was ever built was stolen or broken or something, and no one made any more computers?
would we even recognise the world?
or, going on the other side of the thought, what if someone bought a P4 4 GHz with 1 gig of ram, top of the line video card, etc... and went back in time (theoretically of course) to say, the 1930's and gave someone the computer, and taught him to use it, and how to make more, make upgrades, etc.
what would the world be like then? (a rhetoric question of course, but it would still be interesting to hear some opinions other than my own on the thought)
paxx
Reply #13 Tuesday, July 2, 2002 7:03 AM
Reply #13 Tuesday, July 2, 2002 7:03 AM
Well, Ryan, "only a few seconds" is what drives me nuts.
My P4 1.3GHz has 512 megs of RAM and a quite good Matrox video card. Sure it's fast, and I did see an incredible difference when I moved from my previous 333Mhz to this one. But, as I said, it's now been 6 months or more, and I have gotten accustomed to the spped and now wish it was even faster still.
I can't stand waiting that 10-15 seconds Photoshop takes to open, or the little second and a half here or there before menus respond, and such.
But I must admit, especially on the menus issue, I do notice a good difference now that I've disactivated all skins (including XP system skins - I'm running the "Classic" style).
Maybe I should look at disactivating services I don't use. I think maybe I am running moer stuff than I need.
My P4 1.3GHz has 512 megs of RAM and a quite good Matrox video card. Sure it's fast, and I did see an incredible difference when I moved from my previous 333Mhz to this one. But, as I said, it's now been 6 months or more, and I have gotten accustomed to the spped and now wish it was even faster still.
I can't stand waiting that 10-15 seconds Photoshop takes to open, or the little second and a half here or there before menus respond, and such.
But I must admit, especially on the menus issue, I do notice a good difference now that I've disactivated all skins (including XP system skins - I'm running the "Classic" style).
Maybe I should look at disactivating services I don't use. I think maybe I am running moer stuff than I need.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:36 PM
Of course, I work as an IT Manager, so almost everyone in our shop is a gamer.
But you are right, once you have a 'decent' CPU, the videocard is what makes all the difference right now when it comes to games.
Of course, if I wasn't a gamer I'd probably still be satisfied with my PIII 600, which I replaced earlier this year with a nice Athlon 1800+XP machine.
We may not upgrade as often, but we still upgrade.