Quote:
Originally Posted by pramjockey
I did't say that consoles aren't computers. My calculator is a computer. That doesn't make it equivalent to my PC, which I can use for a variety of tasks, including gaming.
The lag time between versions of consoles means that while their technology may be equal to or slightly above a PC for gaming at their release, they will be completely obsolete by the time the next version is released years later.
There are those who prefer the console for their gaming, and those that prefer their PC. I wouldn't say that one is necessarily superior to the other, but I think that it's unfortunate to discount PC gaming because of the fact that it runs an OS. For me, personally, I find the interface of the PC far more intuitive for the gaming that I do, and the graphics and sound performance that I get are far beyond anything that any console can produce, even if I had shelled out a couple grand for an HDTV.
|
It doesn't matter to me what people buy. I'm not much into consoles either - I'm surrounded by computers because of what I do, so I'm more apt to use a PC for any gaming that I do. However, I'm predicting what the market is going to shape up to look like over the course of time.
From my understand, you're a lot more savvy than the average computer user, who would basically be most pleased by having a button to click for internet, one to click for printer, and one to click for games. With consoles getting browsers and faster processors/more VRam and much, much cheaper than PC's, this user is going to have little interest in buying a PC that does word processing, Quicken, Excel, etc, etc when all he wants is games and a browser. I'm seeing this firsthand with "broke" people my age who couldn't afford PC's and used to "do internet" in an internet cafe or whatever, but now do it all through their Nintendo Wii's.
You're already seeing Microsoft put the brakes on its monolithic OS development. In the 90's, they brought you a new OS for the PC every year or so. Then they brought you XP and didn't release another one for years. I'd imagine Vista is the last of its dying breed and is already an anachronism. Microsoft's entire paradigm is shifting - they're making all their development tools free, some of them open source, and they're gunning for inter-operational web technologies ala Java (but better, IMHO - they're really getting this right with .NET). This is allowing mix and match computing overall, where you get drivers and whatnot on an as-needed basis with a focus on distributed/browser interface. Windows is making mini OS for devices like phones, and they're offering developers accessibility to a pared own kernel so they can distribute "lite" version of Windows as OEM.
My point here is that I'm predicting a shift in the way computing on the whole is done to a much more lightweight and distributed environment with working interactions. I think you're going to see the one-stop-shop PC fazed out in favor of devices with minimized, simpler interfaces that all work together in conjunction. I can imagine (and I'm going to be doing this over the next two years myself) homes in the future having a "media computer" that interfaces with non-PC devices (stereos, DVD players, console gaming devices, speakers, hell - even thermostats and shit) and just provides the user with a pared down, minimal interface that is easy to understand and use. The laptop will be relegated to a lightweight portal to all manner of web services (word processing, excel spreadsheets, internet browsing, etc). That is, device interaction and management in the OS is going to be split off from actual software based needs and interests.
If you really think about it, the whole existing approach is sort of bizarre and arose haphazardly. If you were a time-traveler and planning it out, would you really want a gigantic OS? Would you want the same thing switching the interface between AIM and Weatherbug that was also controlling hardware interrupts from a whole bevy of devices that inexplicably hook up to it? Or would you separate this and have the interface be separate and obtain information from a machine dedicated to processing and queuing hardware interrupts on an as-needed basis?