Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Guesstimate of computers in 20 years

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2006 4:37:59 AM

After reading the "who can list the greatest computer??" thread it's interesting to think about how big an upgrade my current computer is over the first computer I owned 20 years ago, a commodore 128.

Current PC: 3.2ghz 64 bit core 2 duo
C128: 6510 8-bit CPU @ 1.023 MHz
New Vs Old: 25,600 times
20 years from now: 81,920Ghz equivalent (maybe 3.2Ghz with 51,200 cores)

Current PC: 2 gigs of ram
C128: 128kb
New Vs Old: 15,625 times
20 years from now: 31 terrabytes

Current PC: 320 gig hd
C128: 170kb drive
New Vs Old: 1,882,352 times
20 Years from now: 600,000 terrabytes

Current PC: 1920x1200(2,304,000 pixels) Display
C128: 320x200 (64,000 pixels) Display
New Vs Old: 36 times
20 Years from now: around 12,000x8,000 or 82,944,000 pixels

Current PC: 113 Keys
C128: 90 Keys
New Vs Old: 1.26 times
20 Years from now: 142 keys

Current PC: 700 watts
C128: 40 watts
New Vs. Old 17.5 times
20 Years from now: 12,250 watts

Please check my math, my calculator doesn't use commas so it was somewhat hard to read with all those zeros
October 11, 2006 4:45:04 AM

I want to say that some of the things you listed can't be possible, but seeing as how those are famous last words, I'll just say that with Moore's Law effectively shot to hell, I know absolutely nothing and just hope that time and unforseen circumstance allows me to live into my late 30's to see the advancements and come back, dig up this post and either say yea or nat.
October 11, 2006 4:56:57 AM

I think that this is an interesting take on the future of comupters, but this industry is a fickle and unpredictable one. You know that little quip about "never needing more than 640K of RAM" - that wasn't quite so true, now was it? Having said that the industry is unpredictable, you can't really fit its progression to a linear curve as you have - I'm sure that the industry would deviate from the line all over the place.

My prediction: in the next twenty years, society will push for greater integration between computers and their users - us. An intersting project codenamed "Digital Angel" sprang up about six years ago, with the intent of implanting people with GPS tracking microchips. I don't know what happened to this project, but to me, its some kind of precursor to the future of society.
Related resources
October 11, 2006 5:01:28 AM

:shock: . o O (I wonder if I still be around over the next 20 years)

:lol:  :cry:  :lol:  :cry:  :oops:  :lol: 
October 11, 2006 5:11:03 AM

its neat to try and consider what 20 years might have in store, and I think it'll be a little more than just straight linear interpolation of statistics.

Also consider the acceleration of technology.... I think it is tapering off as far as raw numbers are concerned. Raw CPU speed has tapered a little while "different" computing bottlenecks are being addressed.

Other concerns I think will go in a different direction. Our power demand has gone up as a direct result of greater computational power and speed... but I'll hedge my bets on greater efficiency, total power consumption goes down, or the watts per CPS actually goes down, in the next 20 yrs.

I don't believe keys will increase. I think something phenomonal will replace the keyboard as an input device.

I'm excited
October 11, 2006 5:22:48 AM

I can find most of that quite plausible. However what will prob happen before 20years is up is the PC architechture will TOTALLY change.
Hardware and software changes will likely mean a slow growth of certain numbers like cpu, significant speed gains will be made in more instructions per cycle, and more importantly, more efficient programming requiring less resources (i hope, unlike vista)

If we use the old engine analogy... in the 70s BMW had 1.5L turbos with around 1000KW.
Today my 5.7L v8 struggles to get 300KW. Even the 1000KW 3.xL R34 that blew my mind in comparison is pissy.
October 11, 2006 5:35:16 AM

Quote:

Current PC: 1920x1200(2,304,000 pixels) Display
C128: 320x200 (64,000 pixels) Display
New Vs Old: 36 times
20 Years from now: around 12,000x8,000 or 82,944,000 pixels



11520x7200 (assuming the "multiply by 6" method is used).

Still though, I wouldn't mind an 82 megapixel monitor. I might be able to run Wolfenstein 3D at that resolution (using quad Sli, minimum effects enabled and at a frame rate of 25fps). :tongue:
October 11, 2006 6:16:17 AM

Actually, I am more amazed at how little the actual "user experience" has changed in the past twenty or more years. Let's face it, we're all using fancy-ass, super-fast Xerox PARCs with vintage 1970s technology: Keyboards, mice and windowing-OS's are almost thirty years old. If you go back thirty years before that, computers took up entire buildings and were programmed by hard-wiring!

When I was a kid I figured by now, I'd be having philosophical discussions with my own HAL 9000, not still banging on a QWERTY keyboard designed to keep speedtypists from jamming the keys on manual typewriters in 1868!!! Where are the universal speech inputs? Where are the eye-focal pointers? Where are the neural interfaces? Hello?

Even the speed itself of the "user experience" hasn't changed much since my Mac Plus. Even though my CPU is a few zillion times faster than a 68000, Word still takes half a minute to repaginate my manuscript... but it does it in 32 bit color... which is such a help when I'm writing a report... DUH! And my Mac Plus booted up in a few seconds... try that now with XP. So today I can Gigaflip and Gigaflop. Big frakkin' deal.

I'm massively unimpressed by today's computing experience. The vested interests embodied in Satan Gates and his Satyr Henchman Jobs have effectively frozen the computer "user experience" to about 1980 when they first got into the business. They have done more to hold us back than anything else by distracting us with the mad "performance" game which looks great on charts but doesn't mean tiddly-squat to the average computer user.
October 11, 2006 6:34:25 AM

Quote:
Let's face it, we're all using fancy-ass, super-fast Xerox PARCs with vintage 1970s technology: Keyboards, mice and windowing-OS's are almost thirty years old.


But today's mice have lasers... LASERS! That has to count for something, right? :lol: 

Quote:
When I was a kid I figured by now, I'd be having philosophical discussions with my own HAL 9000, not still banging on a QWERTY keyboard designed to keep speedtypists from jamming the keys on manual typewriters in 1868!!! Where are the universal speech inputs? Where are the eye-focal pointers? Where are the neural interfaces? Hello?


It's getting there; you can buy IR trackers for flight sims and weird funky ass keyboards which aren't QWERTY. I remember seeing on the news a story about a girl with cerebral palsy who was able to communicate with people by looking at a certain letter on a sheet of the alphabet which was hooked up to a computer in front of her. When she looked at a letter the computer would speak it out for her, which is pretty damn cool actually.

I remember another peripheral for the PC (it was announced but I can't remember if it ever saw the light of day), which was basically a blood pressure monitor for your finger. The object of the "game" was pass certain challenges by keeping your blood pressure, and thus stress levels, down. I think it was for a stress management app.

Also, vehicle manufacturers are testing sensors that look at your eyes and can tell whether you are drowsy or not. I'm sure some entrepreneur will come up with a way to retro fit it to games.

Edit: Spelling errors
October 11, 2006 6:37:47 AM

Quote:
Actually, I am more amazed at how little the actual "user experience" has changed in the past twenty or more years. Let's face it, we're all using fancy-ass, super-fast Xerox PARCs with vintage 1970s technology: Keyboards, mice and windowing-OS's are almost thirty years old.


You make some interesting, and not entirely untruthful, observations. Certainly my computer is much faster now than at any time in the past for office tasks (Core 2 duo at 3.4Ghz, 2 gigs of ram - so not only word loads instantaneously, but pdfs in acrobat do as well). Another big revolution has been the capacity to handle video, so you get not only youtube, but can watch tv episodes via bittorrent. But the user experience hasn't changed that much.

To me what is most amazing though is the advance in games. Playing something like Far Cry on a home PC is incomprehensible given the state of games on computers like the Commodore 64.
October 11, 2006 6:40:09 AM

Dude, you are an immense dork with way too much time on your hands.

Sadly, as I sit in the early morning hours avoiding my MCSE studies I can relate all too well to your most excellent post.

Since I, too, am old school having owned a TI-99/4A (my how I envied the Commodore 64 owners) and a Mac Plus in the early days I'm afraid you negletected two other very important aspects:

1) How about a calculation about the real estate? My Mac plus and it's whopping 1 megabyte of memory and 8 mhz processor required 1.5 (?) or so cubic feet, youd have to figure that your 20 year future computer would be about the size of a single dice (die?) .... which may make plugging in monitors a bit tough.

2) The other thing you neglected was, of course, price. That mac plus with no HD and two floppy drives (one internal and a second external) set me back $2400 bucks. Adjusted for inflation, if that were to be calculated in $ per teraflops, for example, that future computer would have to be free or purchasable with pocket change at best.

The external hard drive I later purchased for that computer was $600 bucks, 15 or pounds or so, and probably 1/3 cf in size to get me a quite thrilling 20meg. I have a 1gb SD card (another for misseur? Is wafer thin) for my camera that I paid $25 bucks for after rebate that weighs literally nothing by way of statistical comparison. That's 52 times the storage for about 4% of the original cost and literally 0 size/weight by comparison.

Heck, at that rate, 20 years ago I should have been able to predict that I'd eventually be able to get a computing/gaming/database device that would weigh nothing, have some form of built in networking, fit in the palm of my hand, have many times the processing power of that desktop computer, be able to play games - perhaps even in color, and that it would be FREE!!

er... uh... wait, that sounds a lot like my cell phone.

Now before you young whipper snappers and fanboys mock me too hard, keep in mind that you too will one day grow old and your stories of of your present day radical gaming machines will seem as ludicrous to some youngster as my thrills with Donkey Kong or my tales of the abject awe inspired by the first time I played Dragon's Lair. 8)
October 11, 2006 11:03:12 AM

Quote:

But today's mice have lasers... LASERS! That has to count for something, right? :lol: 


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

OLED keyboards... hopefully context sensative that switch with application focus. That's what I'm thinking will be the next move in HCI.
October 11, 2006 7:12:48 PM

Dragon's Lair was the beginning of my ongoing objection over graphics excellence vs. gameplay.
I too was impressed at the visuals the first time I saw someone playing Dragon's Lair. But $3 worth of game tokens later I was bored with the game. It was more like a memory/reflex testing device than a fun video game.
(Scenarios were identical each time. You lived or died by moving a certain direction at the exactly correct time. Often this was arbitrary. Move to the left in one scene, you died. Only way to figure that out was to play it once, and get killed. Then restart, and next time, you had to remember to go to the right and not the left.)
Anyway, I quickly went back to playing Joust, Spyhunter and Miss Pac Man. The visuals were nowhere as good but those games were a whole lot more fun!
October 11, 2006 8:02:29 PM

The sad part is that even if your predictions come true, it'll still take windows 30 seconds or more to load.
October 11, 2006 8:38:39 PM

I just cant believe that you have the time to calculate all those predictions,
i dont think pc will get any faster, instead the software will become simplier to process and the system will appear to be running faster > :lol:  :lol: 
haha thought bout that....
October 11, 2006 9:04:28 PM

If I had to guess, computer technology will continue to grow at an exponential rate (i.e. technology becomming faster at a faster rate) until there is one new innovation related to computer technology that changes everything else. Rinse and repeat.

Think about it like this. Cavemen lived in darkness until fire was found. Fire was integrated into everything they owned and evolved until something better came along (lightbulbs). Now that they have been out for a while, lighting technology has improved (different variations of lightbulbs) as well as increasing effiency.

Although this is somewhat a generalized statement I believe this is the way things are.

Creation -> Improvement -> Innovation.
October 11, 2006 9:24:25 PM

This is one of the most open questions ever; the most approximate answer is "WHO KNOWS?!?!?". IT's much easier to guess what will the world be like after 20 years, will this humanity still exist or not, what will the sea level be etc. Especially now that the silicon process is slowly facing a dead end, nobody really knows, nowever, we all notice some slowdown in the progression; there is no more doubling the frequency (& performance) every year like 6-7 years ago and even though Intel and AMD are pushing more than ever,the greatest chip in 3 years, Core2, only managed ~30%+ compared to 1 year old AMD designs.
October 11, 2006 9:28:40 PM

It's also interesting to think about what new technologies have become mainstream between my C128 and current pc:

The Mouse and GUI
3D graphics
Laser and Bubble Jet printers
Hard drives
Optical drives
LCD displays
Viruses

And the things that have dropped from the mainstream:

A Basic programming prompt at bootup
Dot Matrix and Daisy Wheel Printers
Tape drives
Floppy Drives (also flipping disks)
Dip Switches
Monochrome displays
October 11, 2006 9:35:28 PM

Quote:
The sad part is that even if your predictions come true, it'll still take windows 30 seconds or more to load.


Thirty seconds to load? You're forgetting that the way MS sees things, a bigger, faster computer is only an excuse to make a bigger, bloated OS. It might take closer to thirty minutes to load, with the encouragement that we never, ever turn off our computers.

I really don't see much of all the guessed stuff happening. There is a difference in when technology was just unfolding and when it has progessed significantly. Compare our space program (NASA) for instance. In the 1950's, we didn't have one, yet by 1969 we put men on the Moon. Now we've had the shuttle for over 20 years and haven't really done much of anything.

Computers made similar jumps ahead, but we've been stuck as far as cpu speeds for a couple years or more. The jump from 450 mhz to 2.5 ghz was fast, but getting past 3 ghz has been a major problem, except by overclockers. Graphics cards have made the biggest gains, but they seem to be running out of steam.

Its hard to make guesses, but my crystal ball says we've close to run the course on present technology. Of course, there's always new tech, and I'd really love to have a true, 3D holographic monitor. Shades of Star Trek and its holo decks leaking through there, but just a 3D holo monitor on the desk would be good.
October 11, 2006 9:53:15 PM

In 20 years, computers won't exist; everyone will have a wireless card soldered to the back of their head, and we'll be the internet. Imagine what would happen if you got a virus :lol: 
October 11, 2006 9:57:11 PM

i think computers dont have much more to go but in preattiness. And it that it still doesnt have much left. I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.
October 11, 2006 9:59:27 PM

Quote:
Please check my math, my calculator doesn't use commas so it was somewhat hard to read with all those zeros


2GB Ram= 2 X 1,024 MB Ram=2 X 1,024 X 1,024 KB RAM
2 X 1,024 X 1,024=2,097,152 KB RAM
2,097,152 / 128=16,384
New Vs. Old for Ram: 16,384 times
20 years from now: 32 terabytes

320 GB Hd = 320 X 1,024 X 1,024 = 335,544,320KB
335,544,320 / 170 = 1,973,790
New Vs. Old for HD: 1,973,790 times
20 years from now: 616,809 terabytes (What comes after tera? Quadra?)


I really enjoyed this thread. It also shows how rapidly some things progress whereas others are 'pacing' themselves. For instance, the RAM to HD ratio of the C128 was .75 to 1. If they had both progressed in lockstep then your new comp would now sport 240GB of RAM. Wouldn't that be sweet?
October 11, 2006 10:10:14 PM

In 20 years we better have flying cars and personal quantum computers.... I dont care what else is invented.

And nobody is considering exponential growth.

Can anybody create a growth curve for the last 20 years and show the prediction path for the next 20 years?
October 11, 2006 10:12:26 PM

Quote:
In 20 years, computers won't exist; everyone will have a wireless card soldered to the back of their head, and we'll be the internet. Imagine what would happen if you got a virus :lol: 


Wonder how many people will then ask... What is the best HSF for this chip soldered to the back of my head? I'd want something that is weighs less then 2 grams, plz.

Oh.. is there something stronger then advil for these headaches?
October 11, 2006 10:15:18 PM

You think Zalman will still be making "personal" HSFs for our head? I cant imagine having big orange fans sticking out of my head... although I think I know what my Halloween costume will be.
October 11, 2006 10:21:06 PM

Quote:
i think computers dont have much more to go but in preattiness. And it that it still doesnt have much left. I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.


Computers have just begun. It's such a young technology that our grandchildren will wonder how we got by with only 4 core Conroes to sustain us. We are witnessing the teething stage of the life of the computer, not it's middle-age. They will never go away and they will get better all the time. When you say they have nowhere to go except in their aesthetic appeal I personally think that you are missing something. The ultimate computers are the ones you won't even notice. They will be in your clothes, in your wallet, in your couch and someday they will be in your body. The ultimate computer is not one that looks like the Venus de Milo or the Parthenon. It's the one that looks like a toothbrush because it is a toothbrush.
October 11, 2006 10:23:02 PM

In 20 years, Duke Nukem Forever will be in its final beta stage.
October 11, 2006 10:26:38 PM

Your post calls for speculation - and a lot of it. We can make some certain assumptions however: Moore's "Law" (It isn't a law at all, or even a theory. It is in fact, a self fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.) will certainly continue in a modified form - we can expect PC performance, on average, to double every 2-3 years, stretched over a lengthy period.

(Please note, "Moore's Law" was only a simple observation that the cheapest of the manufacturing processes seemed to allow the production of twice as many components per square inch, about every 2 years or so.)

Nay-sayers about the continuation of the rapid doubling of power, speed and storage are simply mistaken. Sure transistors aren't going to last much longer; photolithography is a positively archaic method of building things. Self-assembling nanotechnology is the future, most likely.

Transistors will be replaced with something else - just as the abacus paradigm gave way to the slide rule paradigm, and the slide rule gave way to mechanical calculators (remember those? Hell, I do!) and valves. Valves gave way to transistors, which gave way to integrated circuits. The next paradigm probably exists already, but has yet to become a commercial reality. If you can pick the paradigm to replace transistors, then you will be a very welathy man (or woman) indeed.

What we can say for sure, is that storage media have a long way to go, and so does parallel processing, and quantuum computers.

The finest thinkers of our time place the first true passing of Turing's Test somewhere in the vicinity of 2020-2025 - and that's basically the last computer man will have much to do with the designing of. This because teh first generation of AIs will design the second generation, and the ssecond will design the third.

The flow on from this infinite feedback loop is that personal PCs (or what passes for them in 2025) will be approaching the intellectual capacity of a human person, but with the computing ability of a machine which is operating in the PetaaFlops range.

The best guesstimates are as follows:

2025 $1000 PC is about 1/10th as smart as a human.
2030 $1000 PC is as smart as a human
2040 $1000 PC is as smart as 1000 humans
2050 $1000 PC is smarter than all humans who have ever lived, combined.

Conveniently (or not, depending on your philosophical stand) 2050 is around the time of the Singularity. This is defined as the point at which the advances in technology become so rapid that it is impossible for an unenhanced human to follow.

With luck, the descendants of our first AIs will invite us along for the ride.

This seques into my assertion that I intend to live for at least 200,000 years and that if the universe is as exciting as I think it probably is, then I may hang around long enough to come back and watch our sun expand and consume the Earth in a couple of billion years. I probably won't still be posting here by then though - so you have something to look forward to. ;) 

Get your Future on at http://www.kurzweilai.net
October 11, 2006 10:27:32 PM

Quote:
In 20 years we better have flying cars and personal quantum computers.... I dont care what else is invented.


I seem to remember flying cars being predicted a few decades ago as being part of our present time. Still nothing on them, and can you imagine how crowded the sky would get?
October 11, 2006 10:29:31 PM

Quote:
In 20 years, Duke Nukem Forever will be in its final beta stage.


No. They'll have just switched rendering engines for the 127th time! ;) 
October 11, 2006 10:29:57 PM

Quote:
i think computers dont have much more to go but in preattiness. And it that it still doesnt have much left. I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.


Computers have just begun. It's such a young technology that our grandchildren will wonder how we got by with only 4 core Conroes to sustain us. We are witnessing the teething stage of the life of the computer, not it's middle-age. They will never go away and they will get better all the time. When you say they have nowhere to go except in their aesthetic appeal I personally think that you are missing something. The ultimate computers are the ones you won't even notice. They will be in your clothes, in your wallet, in your couch and someday they will be in your body. The ultimate computer is not one that looks like the Venus de Milo or the Parthenon. It's the one that looks like a toothbrush because it is a toothbrush.

You never know:
"In recent news, AMD and INTEL have realized that computer technology has reached its limits and are closing shop. This move will lay of 1.5 million workers, but it was inevitable once both companies realized it was impossible to put more then 4 cores on one chip. The VP of AMD said in a news release earlier today:
'If only we could have put 5 cores inside our chip, we could have saved the company'"
October 11, 2006 10:50:20 PM

Current PC: 19" monotor
C128: 24" TV
New Vs Old: 0.79
20 years from now: 15" screen
October 11, 2006 10:52:09 PM

I didn't read through all the posts, so please forgive me if somebody already pointed this out...

But the original posts is assuming a linear growth in computer technology. So if the first 20 years yeilded a 25,600 fold increase, the next 20 years should yeild another 25,600 fold increase.

This, however, is likely be an UNDERESTIMATION of the state of technology. Just as having a hammmer makes it easier to make better hammers, technology seems to keep feeding itself and growing faster than at a linear pace.
October 11, 2006 10:58:12 PM

Quote:
In 20 years we better have flying cars and personal quantum computers.... I dont care what else is invented.

And nobody is considering exponential growth.

Can anybody create a growth curve for the last 20 years and show the prediction path for the next 20 years?



This isnt a 56 page thread yet... Idea Theif.


lol :)  Hay Dasickninja, we need to make the longest thread in history... again.
October 11, 2006 11:15:07 PM

Quote:
i think computers dont have much more to go but in preattiness. And it that it still doesnt have much left. I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.


Computers have just begun. It's such a young technology that our grandchildren will wonder how we got by with only 4 core Conroes to sustain us. We are witnessing the teething stage of the life of the computer, not it's middle-age. They will never go away and they will get better all the time. When you say they have nowhere to go except in their aesthetic appeal I personally think that you are missing something. The ultimate computers are the ones you won't even notice. They will be in your clothes, in your wallet, in your couch and someday they will be in your body. The ultimate computer is not one that looks like the Venus de Milo or the Parthenon. It's the one that looks like a toothbrush because it is a toothbrush.

omfg did you quote me to say im wrong and then say the exact same thing i said? or you probably didnt understand what i said.
October 11, 2006 11:17:01 PM

I'm so not here for that... I already have a massive thread working. Clicky the siggy.
October 11, 2006 11:30:25 PM

Quote:
Current PC: 3.2ghz 64 bit core 2 duo
C128: 6510 8-bit CPU @ 1.023 MHz
New Vs Old: 25,600 times
20 years from now: 81,920Ghz equivalent (maybe 3.2Ghz with 51,200 cores)

I don't see progress as linear - I see it as broadening. As circuits continue to get smaller, they need more advances in fabricating just to progress. Consider that Intel is moving to 45nm, then 32 then 22 - the technology just to be able to fabricate chips at this scale is astounding.
Also, the needs of a CPU are changing. In 20 years, I don't know if the computer will be as standalone as it is now. Probably will merge with the TV as HTPCs are starting to do right now. Therefore, a CPU will also contain the GPU, physics, decoder, DRM, et. cores.


Quote:
Current PC: 2 gigs of ram
C128: 128kb
New Vs Old: 15,625 times
20 years from now: 31 terrabytes

Possible, you never know what new tech is going to come out, and how much RAM will be required. Theoretically, if die shrinks continue afster than the amount of RAM a user needs, the RAM could be embedded in the cache on the CPU itself - not likely, as people will always want more memory than they need.


Quote:
Current PC: 320 gig hd
C128: 170kb drive
New Vs Old: 1,882,352 times
20 Years from now: 600,000 terrabytes

Likely, with holographic storage coming out this year, with plans on hitting 1.6TB by 2010, I think 600 Petabytes will be doable by 2026.

Quote:
Current PC: 1920x1200(2,304,000 pixels) Display
C128: 320x200 (64,000 pixels) Display
New Vs Old: 36 times
20 Years from now: around 12,000x8,000 or 82,944,000 pixels

Can you imagine the size of that monitor? :o 


Quote:
Current PC: 113 Keys
C128: 90 Keys
New Vs Old: 1.26 times
20 Years from now: 142 keys

I think if you added more keys, you might scare some people that are already intimidated by a computer. More likely, input will be better facilitated by ergonomic devices. The contoller on the upcoming Nintendo Wii is a start.


Quote:
Current PC: 700 watts
C128: 40 watts
New Vs. Old 17.5 times
20 Years from now: 12,250 watts

Most homes use 15 amp breakers, which is 1800 watts. Some older ones use 10 amp (1200 watts). I don't think universal rewiring will come into play in twenty years, nor do I think mainstream computers will require a dedicated 240v outlet.
October 12, 2006 12:06:04 AM

Quote:
i think computers dont have much more to go but in preattiness. And it that it still doesnt have much left. I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.


Computers have just begun. It's such a young technology that our grandchildren will wonder how we got by with only 4 core Conroes to sustain us. We are witnessing the teething stage of the life of the computer, not it's middle-age. They will never go away and they will get better all the time. When you say they have nowhere to go except in their aesthetic appeal I personally think that you are missing something. The ultimate computers are the ones you won't even notice. They will be in your clothes, in your wallet, in your couch and someday they will be in your body. The ultimate computer is not one that looks like the Venus de Milo or the Parthenon. It's the one that looks like a toothbrush because it is a toothbrush.

omfg did you quote me to say im wrong and then say the exact same thing i said? or you probably didnt understand what i said.

While I do admit your point when you say it is difficult to understand you I have to disagree with your belief that what I said entirely correlates to what you said. You said computers "dont have much more to go but in preattiness" and I disagree. Prettiness (correct spelling, btw) is by its very definition concerned with appearances. My point is that computers are concerned with what they can do, not how they look while doing it. You go on to say that they need to become "alot more intergrated into the whole household," which is a point with which I did not disagree. In fact, I elaborated upon that point in the rest of my post. Note that in my first response I specifically pointed out that my argument was not against your post as a whole but rather with your statement about "preattiness".
October 12, 2006 12:48:43 AM

Quote:
Computers have just begun. It's such a young technology that our grandchildren will wonder how we got by with only 4 core Conroes to sustain us. We are witnessing the teething stage of the life of the computer, not it's middle-age. They will never go away and they will get better all the time. When you say they have nowhere to go except in their aesthetic appeal I personally think that you are missing something. The ultimate computers are the ones you won't even notice. They will be in your clothes, in your wallet, in your couch and someday they will be in your body. The ultimate computer is not one that looks like the Venus de Milo or the Parthenon. It's the one that looks like a toothbrush because it is a toothbrush.


What i meant, computers will have to do more than just play games and process stuff. Prettiness. If you understand what im saying. But computers will have to go into usefullness. A wheel is usefull, but not to advanced or pretty. therefore you didnt uderstand anything i said by infering that i meant asthetics of a computer; if i did, that would had been the dumbest shit ever...what a colorfull case? ofcourse i meant procesing. So to make it clear i will refrase:

i think computers dont have much more to do peformance wise. Programs already manage most of the needs of the everyday person with astonishing speeds. M$ is trying with Vista to stop that for some time. Ageia is trying to go into a useless tangent(in my opinion). Therefore, i think that the future of computers is in efficiency and usefullness, as well as how well they are incorporated into our routinely daily activities. I could say that a tothbrush is a computer but that point is absolete and useless. I use "computers" everyday in my math class as well, yet we all know that nobody in these forums is interested in overclocking a calculator for any usefull purposes...(back to original)....I think computers will need to get inovative, alot more confortable, use alot less Watts, bigger screens(they get cheaper to do), and alot more intergrated into the whole household...maybe thought.
October 12, 2006 1:48:54 AM

Well processing power needs to increase like crazy for stuff like encoding and folding and all the important stuff other than word and windows.
October 12, 2006 2:58:38 AM

Thank you for clarifying your point. Yes, I did think you meant how the computer looked and yes I also thought it was the stupidest **** ever. Can you blame for taking what you said literally, though? You didn't elaborate so naturally I assumed you meant exactly what you said. Also, you could have told me in your first reply what you actually meant. I think it was obvious by my post that I thought you meant the 'looks' of the computer.

I disagree whem you say that computers today perform with astonishing speed. It can take us hours to transcode a movie file with current tech. That's pretty inconvenient to a great deal of people. However, when we can do the same operation in 5 minutes then I will concede that it is astonishingly fast. (The paradox being, of course, that 5 minutes will seem astonishingly slow when several years later we can do it in 1 second.)

In addition, I do not feel that Ageia is going off on a useless tangent. Their implementation of hardware physics may be off base but it is a revolutionary concept that will pay off for gamers in the future.
October 13, 2006 7:32:32 AM

Quote:
You make some interesting, and not entirely untruthful, observations. Certainly my computer is much faster now than at any time in the past for office tasks (Core 2 duo at 3.4Ghz, 2 gigs of ram - so not only word loads instantaneously, but pdfs in acrobat do as well). Another big revolution has been the capacity to handle video, so you get not only youtube, but can watch tv episodes via bittorrent. But the user experience hasn't changed that much.


The basic reason for my comparison is the lack of progress in interface in the past thirty years as compared to the thirty years before that.

In 1976 we had keyboards and mice were just on the horizon.

In 1946 we didn't even have punchcard readers yet.

Sure, with today's computers that have far more processing power than all of NASA did when Apollo 11 landed on the moon (or didn't land on the moon, depending on who you talk to) I am expecting a lot more than a fast load or bootup.

I wanna step up to my console and say "Hello Computer!" And have this expensive clot of circuitry do my work for me and cook my breakfast!!! :D 
October 13, 2006 8:41:25 AM

Can I give you a quote from one of the worlds most famous scientist which will explain it all

Frink: ................ I predict that within 100 years, computers will
be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive
that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.
October 13, 2006 9:10:41 AM

if we 're still using MS in 20 years time.... god help us

in 20 years time computer technology will be integral to every part of every day life but mostly in the background

home computer clients will more likely connect to central computers with massive computing power that will be taken for granted and there will be nothing that will tax them

I think personal computers will be a thing of the past, but portable devices will prosper. These will have limited computing power

So in 20 years time, you wont be comparing your pc to your friends.
October 13, 2006 9:44:35 AM

Quote:

320 GB Hd = 320 X 1,024 X 1,024 = 335,544,320KB
335,544,320 / 170 = 1,973,790
New Vs. Old for HD: 1,973,790 times
20 years from now: 616,809 terabytes (What comes after tera? Quadra?)


Tera, Petta, Exa, Zetta, Yotta
October 13, 2006 10:02:53 AM

Quote:
In 20 years, Duke Nukem Forever will be in its final beta stage.


Now that was inevitable.

As for future growth, we have new technologes besides the multiple-core trend we now see developing of the em/silica technology. Holographic/optical and quantum computing are showing promise. Taking a look back to 1986 may not be the most helpful way to approah the idea of 20 years from now. We seem to be living in a time of accelerated technological progress. This makes the future all that much harder to concieve - and who knows what major breakthrough might actually happen. I only have my job because there isn't a complex AI and voice recognition system to do the job instead.

As for interface, well there have been refinements to keyboards and mice. What's more interesting is that the voice and telemetric technologies are beginning to mature. LCD displays that you can roll up will be on the market soon too - as this matures you will see it all over the place. Signs, mobile phones and computing, hide-away displays...
October 13, 2006 11:25:28 AM

Quote:
The sad part is that even if your predictions come true, it'll still take windows 30 seconds or more to load.


... unless you install your o/s on a flash drive :p 
click me !
October 13, 2006 12:15:50 PM

I think the power requirement is the least likely aspect of your post to become a reality. All the rest... who knows?
October 13, 2006 7:51:06 PM

Maybe what we should be talking about then. What future tech that is in the developmental, or researching stage, would we like to see succeed?

Personally, I am looking forward to Holographic Storage as being the future medium of storage. I first read about it in college 6 years ago before it was a major public tech, and I have been looking forward to seeing it ever since.

I dont like the idea of Quantum computers because the science behind the idea it is stupid IMO. It represents a shear increase in calculating power, but its not really logical (at this time).

I also want to see physics become a real part of gamming and simulations in the future. Right now, physics in gamming is very approximate, and very limited.... I want Red Faction 1 to have a real sequel.
!