Print 56 comment(s) - last by serajadeyn.. on Dec 13 at 12:25 PM

An introspective, completely unsubstantiated view of the technology enthusiast, in late 2007

More than a few times someone asked me why does DailyTech cover all that global warming stuff, or defense tech, or automotive breakthroughs.  There's a good answer to that, but its not a simple one.

In 2004 I already saw the writing on the wall.  PC technology started commoditizing, and at a brisk clip as well. 

When I got my first K6 processor, it was not just the overclockers that cranked up that 66 MHz front-side bus.  Anyone who bought a computer had to know some of the essential differences between MMX and 3D-Now!.  A lack of knowledge, in those days, would set the up and coming computer user back hundreds of dollars if he wasn't careful.

Whether you agree with Karl Marx or Karl Rove (or anyone in between), a telltale sign of commodification occurs when the manufacturer stops focusing on tangible aspects of the product and starts pushing less tangible selling points.  This often occurs when competing products are too similar, or at least indistinguishable from the purchasers point of view. 

Where have we seen this before?  Well, my HTC Hermes did everything the iPhone did a year beforehand, but I'm pretty sure Apple sold a whole lot more iPhones.  Look at today's motherboards: any manufacturer would tell you its  all-solid capacitors are better than the next guy. And don't even get me started on the memory industry ...

I remember the exact instant when computer hardware became a commodity.  Steve Jobs got up in front of one hundred journalists and in less than 60 seconds, a million Apple zealots went from ardent Intel naysayers to hardened Intel devotees.  In that moment I realized it didn't really much matter to anyone which CPU was better than another, it only mattered what Steve Jobs told everyone to think anyway.

Other signs of the death of the PC enthusiast are littered across the Internet like the tattered remains of a kite breaking up on rentry.   The birth and demise of AMD's Quadfather, the ubiquitous lack of support (or interest) for quad-GPU graphics, failed physics processors and inconsequential sales of "killer" network cards. 
In a recent conversation with Jon Stokes, both of us agreed that while PC tech has seen some great growth over the last few years, this growth is not keeping pace with the Internet as a whole.  PC technology, as a journalistic discipline, is unfortunately niched to the degree you'd find with muscle cars. 

This leads me to answer the question I started out with: the PC industry, as a whole, just isn't as fast-moving or interesting anymore.   Attempting to debate the merits of largely intangible technology topics is a discussion more akin to politics than science.

You bet I'm excited about CPU-GPU integration and new OLED technology, but another unfathomably high frequency bump in the sea of JEDEC memory timings completely fails to pique my interest.  Analysis of Google Keywords would indicate those more mundane markers of progress in the PC industry fail to grasp even the smallest of demographics on the Internet as well.

That does not discount the importance of the tech enthusiast.  Those of us who grew up debating the merits of CPU architecture in the 1990's are the pioneers in virtual discussion.  We are what the majority of consumers will become over the next decade when new, broader forums come to be. 

Don't worry, I'm still the first person in Taiwan with Intel's next-generation roadmap.  However, as this industry withers and new ones blossom, I encourage you all as pioneers and enthusiasts to look beyond the chips and bits once in a while.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Lack of Innovation
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
As the above poster said/implied, you obviously know little about Vista. You really should read up from some reputable sources instead of echoing myths posted by ignorant people and Linux fanboys.

#2, Does not scale well for multiple CPU's - WTF? Basically same kernel design as XP and NT (updated version of the same code, really), which worked great on multiple CPUs. I've personally run WinXP and Vista with SMP for years, and Vista is at least as good as XP in that repect.

#4, DRM, again totally ignorant. Vista is not "bloated" with DRM any more than XP. If you read about DRM in Vista, you'll see that a lot of what Vista has was already present in XP, that Vista has the ability to support more DRM with third-part support (but doesn't include that portion), and that DRM doesn't affect performance of other aspects of the OS (e.g., when you're not watching a movie). Get the fact's from the source, instead of the Linux love-groups:

#5, Not sure why you bring up SP1, because memory size is a 32-bit limitation; there is no reasonable expectation that SP1 might "solve" that problem. And I would remind you that WinXP 64-bit has been out for years now, so it is hardly the fault of Microsoft that the industry has not adopted 64-bit. The real reason is that most desktop users have no use whatsoever for 64-bit. Most people are running 512MB, 1GB, to 2GB of RAM, for which clearly 32-bit is fine.

RE: Lack of Innovation
By Ringold on 12/1/2007 3:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
I dont understand the argument that the OS has anything to do with the things that light fires under enthusiasts in the first place, Tom.

Maybe I totally missed the point of HardOCP's existence; Hard Over-Clocker's Place (or is it planet? my [H]ardness fails me). I always thought it was about tweaking, modding and raw performance. AT, TR, Bit-Tech, these places review hardware and measure performance, not fuzzy aspects of how the OS works but performance.

As long as a driver exists for an OS, and its fairly optimized, as it is for Windows, then the PC enthusiast experience appears to me to be independent entirely of the OS.

I know some people like to flog MS for all the evil in the world, but I don't get it here.

RE: Lack of Innovation
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 4:40:18 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. I think in theory it is possible for an OS to "bog down" performance of the entire system, but I haven't ever seen that happen with Win2K, XP, or Vista. I think performance problems typically relate to, as you may have implied, a poorly written device driver.

There is one exception that I would say, however, which is that if the computer has less RAM than the particular OS + application set demands, then you're going to see an overall slowdown.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
Related Articles
AMD Kills Quad FX Platform
November 29, 2007, 3:50 PM
BAE Sports Most Powerful Railgun Ever
November 27, 2007, 1:36 PM
GM Readies Chevrolet Volt for 2010
November 21, 2007, 3:00 PM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki