I've been thinking about this for the last while and a bit.
Much has been said about how the X Box is really just a PC that was designed to excel at running games.
I've also noted something else about it. It's really a stable platform. I've sat at it for hours on end, playing games and whatnot, and it has never crashed on me*.
I think this stability has much to do with the X Box running on a consistent hardware platform. This would take a lot of the guess work out of making the software/hardware interactions work smoothly.
The Xbox can also go online via Xbox Live (I don't know much about this service and it's capabilities though, as I've yet to use it.)
And It's very conceivable that the Xbox could also be able to run programs other then games on it. And also be made to support other hardware, like a keyboard.
So, whats to stop the Xbox (or rather the grandchildren of the Xbox since this generation has probably hit the end of the line) from becoming full fledge computers?
Really, all that would need to be added to make the Xbox a full home computer as well as a top of the line game system would be a mouse/keyboard, and some office (accounting, word processing, etc.) and web surfing applications.
Does anyone see this happening? Why/why not?
Dystopian Dreamer
*Ok, it has crashed on me twice, but not while running games. I was using the DVD feature to go through a music vedio frame by frame. This crashed the Xbox once. I also managed to crash several DVD players this way, and my friends MAC. It seems DVDs in general just don't like to be rappidly advanced frame by frame for long periods. The other time it crashed was when the side of the unit was hit and (I assume) the disk sorta got mis-aligned. Popped it out, rebooted, and it worked fine again.
People have been seeing this happening since the Atari days, but it has yet to actually happen.
Part of the reason is because as you move consoles closer to the PC paradigm, or vice-versa, you end up simply reinventing the wheel. An Xbox is an Xbox instead of a PC because it doesn't have to do all the things a PC does. If you begin moving the Xbox towards doing all the things a PC does, you end up with a PC.
Part of the savings on consoles is viewing them on a TV screen. If the console was to run internet and word processing stuff, you'd quickly see text on a television screen looks like ass.
The alternative is to sell a monitor as well, but then you really are selling a PC, and aren't going to be priced that much cheaper.
This might change with all the swanky digital tellies, but I don't know.
__________________
It beckons enslavement to the belly.
Convergence - the amalgamation of different niches into one device. It seems like a sensible idea on the surface. But there are issues.
Good issues:
Consoles are extremely cheap compared to PCs, often in an effort to get people to buy them below cost and then make money off game sales. I could see Microsoft taking a similar approach in giving away PCs in order to profit off word-processor sales.
Consoles have standardised hardware. You make something for XPC, it'll run on the XPC and everyone will have the same experience.
Bad issues:
Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world; PCs coming out at the end of a console cycle will put the current consoles to shame, and compete favourably with the next generation. This means a console product spends a lot of time being obsolete.
PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content. Consoles don't have to compile C++ code and test-run it - they don't have to deal with high-resolution image manipulation - they restrict the actions of the developers, not the users. I'm not sure how important this would be in practice, but it is important.
A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts. I've lost track of the number of hard drives I've helped transplant just on a whim, and swapping RAM sticks is quite common too. Some people just don't need certain features, and really want others. Paying a lot for a box with a superpowerful audio/video engine is good if you like gaming, but if you don't like that and want to run intense image manipulation instead, and the box doesn't have an accelerator for that, what good is it to you? You've just bought a sports car when you wanted a tractor - it can do the job, but it's a waste of everybody's time.
And, of course, consoles are restricted to TV output. It's nice - TV screens are bigger than all but the most extreme computer monitors. But it's restricted - most TV screens are blurry and low-resolution compared to PC monitors. Simple word processing would be painful to see on a TV screen - what's the smallest writing you've seen on such a screen? And what special-legibility font were they using? The blurry, low resolution lets console games look smooth and act fast, and that's OK. But a PC screen is sharp, and PC software needs sharpness.
I think the convergence will happen one day, but it'll be a day when hi-res TV screens (or optic/neural interface displays) are as commonplace as the telephone. And what we think of as computers and consoles will be very different. I haven't really followed Bill Gates' thoughts, but apparently, 10-20 years down the line we'll have computers that really work...
__________________ Riftsea Revealed - thread describing my technofantasy setting - your input welcomed! Dungeon Damage - irregularly updated art , CGI, thoughts, and sometimes comic
It won't happen becasue console manufacturers are moving towards not including a hard drive. If anything, they'll move towards being dumb terminals remotely connected to a network, which I don't think will go over well for people that use their computers to say, balance their checkbook. Having that information stored remotely isn't really appealing.
Part of the savings on consoles is viewing them on a TV screen. If the console was to run internet and word processing stuff, you'd quickly see text on a television screen looks like ass.
Once Hi Defininition TVs become the norm, this problem will be reduced. Though there may be a problem with doing your average word processing on a 27" TV, I'm sure things can be adjusted to compensate for the output device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s/LaSH
Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world
Less and less relevent as time goes by. Things are getting faster and faster, but we'll notice it less and less. Say an operation takes a minute to perform. That's your base line. Then something new comes along and can perform the same operation in a second. That's a massive improvment. The operation can be compleated in 1/60th of the time, for a very noticeable improvement. Now, say the next generation moves it from a second to a milisecond. That's 1/1000th of the time. You'd notice it, and things go much faster. But is it as noticeable an improvement from 1 minute to 1 second? Nope. Going up the scale, the operation takes only a fraction of the time, but the improvements become less and less noticable.
Of course, to a degree, we now use operations that are more comlex and take more time to preform. But we are reaching a plateau. And once we hit that plateau product life can become longer. Hell, I know a lot of people who are still using thier stereo equipment from the 80's. It was cutting edge at the time, sure, but it's still good today. Not too many people can tell the difference between A good stereo from the 80's and your average one from now. Now compare a good Computer from the 80's to your average one now and it will look comic. Diminishing returns.
I built my computer close to 4 years ago, while I was a straving college student. It wasn't anywhere near top of the line then, and by now it's a relic. But you know what? It still suits my needs just fine. It can play music and video flawlessly, and is great for doing things online with. And of course it handles office apps just fine. That's all I need it to do. Except for one thing. It doesn't play the new games well. But for that I use my Game Cube and my X Box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s/LaSH
PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content. Consoles don't have to compile C++ code and test-run it - they don't have to deal with high-resolution image manipulation - they restrict the actions of the developers, not the users
Not too many people use thier home computers for this sort of thing. Sure, there'll always be a segment, but most people are content just using the computer for the same few applications, and forwarding the last joke they got in thier inbox to all thier friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s/LaSH
A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts.
Ok, a lot, but still a small minority. Most users order a computer form Dell or buy one from Best Buy and never change anything in it. Hell, I've only done a few upgrades on that four year computer I mentioned above. Gave it a CD burner when I could afford one, stuck in another stick of RAM, gave it a new Hard Drive when the last one died, and put in a wireless nic. Small stuff like this most people will either ask thier neigbour's kid to do it, or will get the tech at best buy to do it. No big deal. I'm not saying that everyone would want a closed system. There will always be people who'll mess around with thier computer. It's just most people are happy to have a working system that meets thier needs and then leave it like it is.
Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world; PCs coming out at the end of a console cycle will put the current consoles to shame, and compete favourably with the next generation. This means a console product spends a lot of time being obsolete.
Of course the reason why the hardware is having to constantly update, is because of lazy programmers who have come to take advantage of that curve, instead of optimizing their code for the present generation.
The XBOX for instance, is in many cases running the same game as well as the equivalent PC version, and just as well. THis is partly because of the hardware being tuned for it, but partly because the programmers are actually forced to optomize for the present hardware.
Quote:
PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content.
I wholly disagree with this. In my mind, PCs have actually gone backwards in this sense. THings like music software, image editing, and programming software, are being driven up in price at insane rates, because the software companies really don't like the idea of the end user being able to just make-their-own, instead of giving them wads of cash.
Once upon a time, ever computer came with at least one built-in programming language. Now, no computer comes with one, and users are expected to fork over 3 and 4 digit sums for the privledge of writing programs themselves.
Quote:
A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts.
As DD pointed out, this isn't really true for the majority of users, who just buy some black-box system from Dell or wherever, and really wouldn't notice the difference at all.
I'd personally like to see machines with sort of cartridge-like slots for certain vital components, like RAM, CPU, and HD, that allow easy upgrade in the future, thus providing a little extra life for the system, and more value for the consumer in the long run.
The console industry has come close a few times, with things like the N64 expansion pak, the PS2's HD and network add-ons, as well as several similar devices for the Dreamcast.
Quote:
And, of course, consoles are restricted to TV output.
This is a good point here, and one I'll half concede to. I used the web via my Dreamcast for sometime, and was constantly frustrated by the fact that 640x480 just isn't big enough. However, I do think that's partially the fault of web designers, not technology. The vast majority of sites don't really NEED 1024x768, nor do they need to put Flash in every last thing. Why they do still mystifies me.
Similarly, I'm always bothered by the amount of unnecessary screen space eaten up my most applications, especially on Windows machines. It's one of the reasons I respect Macs. IME, in Classic, 640x480 was pretty much always enough for most things, except for web browsing, for the problems I mentioned above.
MY belief, is that the real reason it isn't happening, is that it would step on way too many peoples toes, people with lots and lots of money.
I've been thinking about this for the last while and a bit.
Much has been said about how the X Box is really just a PC that was designed to excel at running games.
I've also noted something else about it. It's really a stable platform. I've sat at it for hours on end, playing games and whatnot, and it has never crashed on me*.
I think this stability has much to do with the X Box running on a consistent hardware platform. This would take a lot of the guess work out of making the software/hardware interactions work smoothly.
The Xbox can also go online via Xbox Live (I don't know much about this service and it's capabilities though, as I've yet to use it.)
And It's very conceivable that the Xbox could also be able to run programs other then games on it. And also be made to support other hardware, like a keyboard.
So, whats to stop the Xbox (or rather the grandchildren of the Xbox since this generation has probably hit the end of the line) from becoming full fledge computers?
Really, all that would need to be added to make the Xbox a full home computer as well as a top of the line game system would be a mouse/keyboard, and some office (accounting, word processing, etc.) and web surfing applications.
Does anyone see this happening? Why/why not?
Dystopian Dreamer
*Ok, it has crashed on me twice, but not while running games. I was using the DVD feature to go through a music vedio frame by frame. This crashed the Xbox once. I also managed to crash several DVD players this way, and my friends MAC. It seems DVDs in general just don't like to be rappidly advanced frame by frame for long periods. The other time it crashed was when the side of the unit was hit and (I assume) the disk sorta got mis-aligned. Popped it out, rebooted, and it worked fine again.
That does seem to be what Microsoft and Sony are trying to do with their future consoles, to turn them into 'digital entertainment centers' that do pretty much most things a computer can do as they are both trying to 'dominate the living room'.
Once upon a time, ever computer came with at least one built-in programming language. Now, no computer comes with one, and users are expected to fork over 3 and 4 digit sums for the privledge of writing programs themselves.
I think you mean "Windows doesn't come with one."
It's awfully hard to get much done on a Linux box without the (free, included) C compiler, and most distros also at least make available a number of other (free) languages and tools.
Every Mac comes with the (free) development tools from Apple. They're not installed by default, but they're on the CDs that come with the OS. And there's also AppleScript Studio for those that don't want to mess with "real" app development.
Not to say that things aren't a little more difficult/complicated than in the days of ROM BASIC on the TI99-4A, or Apple ][, but it's hardly fair to tar every computer with that brush.
Linear Mode
