Will the PC be as we know it in 10 years?

[AuroEdge]

http://www.everybodyiscrazy.com/index.php?p=17

I just read this article. Basically it's suggesting that for most users in the near future they will just have something similar to a terminal which will connect to their 'ISP' and use applications remotely. As it stands now it seems to me that Bandwidth is plenty fast enough to deal with this. Look at remote desktop. I can connect to my machine, using the NT Remote Desktop protocol, and it feels like I'm sitting right in front of it; I only have cable internet. This kinda reminds me of that gaming PC idea that came out a few years ago. Hook this computer you buy up to your internet and you can download games without a hassle for a low monthly fee. Everything installs as it should and it runs almost like a console.

Now, all of this sounds good, but are we really headed in this direction? Over Christmas I was on vacation. One of the things I did was visit my grandfather's house and looked at his old Zenith IBM compatible PC. That machine was built & sold in 1984. It looks and runs very similar to what we know PCs to be today. So, what we use now is basically the 'same' thing we've had for over 20 years so is it farfetched to think anybody will change anytime soon? I don't think so. Fast broadband seems to be catching on all over the States. People aren't stuck with 128Kbit DSL or slower anymore. I guess only time will tell.

[Skynet]

Fast broadband seems to be catching on all over the States. People aren't stuck with 128Kbit DSL or slower anymore. I guess only time will tell.

Well, marketing what you described with the hooking into your ISP thing would only be available to a select number of countries. Because of what you just said - All over "the States". Now in Australia I'm going to assume that 56k is still dominant over the market mainly due to pricing and unavailability. Lots and lots of places are unable to get DSL or cable in Australia simply because the phone company that owns everything are all a bunch of pricks. Ask Black Aura, he'll tell you

The cost issue is my problem. $60 a month is minimum for a decent 512/128 (12gb download limit - or there abouts) package here. That's quite large considerring I only pay $20 a month for 56k (unlimited hours/downloads).

[Covar]

ouch. I couldn't stand to go back to dialup.

in 10 years this might be true in the US at least, but i doubt it. people want to own their computers and have control over what they can do. for example if all i had was a terminal, i wouldn't be able to download anime, and objects that could be considered questionable. and would that kill of linux, and macs, or even windows.

[MystiK]

in response to the topic, no. The monitor will be implanted in our eyes, the CPU embedded in the heart, and your ass becomes a printer.

[Matt]

Don't Micro$oft want people to pay monthly subscriptions and track everything on peoples harddrives. If thats the case a lot more people will be using Linux.

Maybe in 10years HTPC's will be common in a lot of homes

[Wagh]

Don't Micro$oft want people to pay monthly subscriptions and track everything on peoples harddrives. If thats the case a lot more people will be using Linux.

Maybe in 10years HTPC's will be common in a lot of homes

Because in ten years Linux will still the "be all and end all" of Microsoft hatred. If there was a setup like this I highly doubt any current os would be used. As for you matt, you lost several points by stratgetically placing that dollar sign in microsoft.

[Matt]

7 as in 7, or 7 and up? Tbh I can't be bothered to switch to Linux, and I just don't like the price of XP and Office

Maybe this system could work but wouldn't all the bandwidth needed require replacing/upgrading large amounts of the existing infrastructure/s in residential areas?

[mariobro]

Dude you fell short. The PC architecture is actually 30 years old. Check out a 1970s computer, and you'll see what I mean.

Problem is, innovations in PC architecture are restricted to backwards compatibility. Manufacturers don't want to piss people off. When the change was made from the ISA bus to the new PCI standard, hardware sales fell dramatically. So now they are way more careful when making changes to the PC's architecture. That's why you'll now see PCI Express and Serial ATA.

[AuroEdge]

Dude you fell short. The PC architecture is actually 30 years old. Check out a 1970s computer, and you'll see what I mean.

Problem is, innovations in PC architecture are restricted to backwards compatibility. Manufacturers don't want to piss people off. When the change was made from the ISA bus to the new PCI standard, hardware sales fell dramatically. So now they are way more careful when making changes to the PC's architecture. That's why you'll now see PCI Express and Serial ATA.

That's really a shame and I know it's what's going on. I wouldn't mind buying a machine that's vastly superior to what we have now even if it meant I couldn't upgrade hardware and it'd be middle of the line in a few years. I'll be honest in saying that should my computer usage ever be limited to checking email, web surfing, and talking to friends that I would probably want a simple & easy remote setup. People are slow to adapt and don't like new things. I've never seen a WebTV at a friend's house so that must mean something.

[mariobro]

I say we're still a long way from seeing the PC as an appliance. That has always been Microsoft's goal, but they haven't figured outhow to go about it.

It's actually a cool idea, but it hasn't caught on. A part of the problem is the human interface. A keyboard and mouse in the living room just doesn't cut it. They have to figure out a better way. A PDA is sometimes just as hard to use as a PC, so a lot of people won't like it.

Remember how Bill Gates said that he hated the Desktop, and that they were gonna get rid of it in the next Windows? But you still see a Desktop. There's a lot of hardware potential wasted there. We should already have Artificial Intelligence on OSs, that figure out what we want to do, and help us do it.

[ian]

Lots and lots of places are unable to get DSL or cable in Australia simply because the phone company that owns everything are all a bunch of pricks.

lol

[Pyrosurfer]

This is a pretty dumb Idea. Why would you use 2 computers to do 1 thing? It's more efficient and convenient to have one computer controlling the job. What if the internet goes down, you can't do anything.

If you had a t3 and multiple pcs allocated per job this idea would fly. This wouldn't shut down microsoft either, what do you think they would use on the terminal?

[Zealous zerotype]

Well some people do us emultibal pc's to do one thing....

[Pyrosurfer]

This is the same concept as grid computing (Seti@home). I don't think it would work too good with multiple users. Occasionally you would get computation lag from other users disconnecting/connecting/doing computation intensive jobs.

[BlackAura]

Lots and lots of places are unable to get DSL or cable in Australia simply because the phone company that owns everything are all a bunch of pricks. Ask Black Aura, he'll tell you

Damn you Telstra!

That has always been Microsoft's goal, but they haven't figured outhow to go about it.

They're just going about it the wrong way. I don't think they have a clue really. Seen their "Media Center PCs" recently? The important part is "PC". It's a PC first, an appliance second.

I think that's because Microsoft currently have no other way to do things. If you're building something as an appliance first, a lot of considerations go right out the window. If it's not a PC, it doesn't need to do the same stuff a PC does. That means it doesn't need to run Windows, it doesn't need an x86 compatable processor, it doesn't need a mouse or a keyboard, it doesn't need... well... anything else that typically comes with a PC. All it needs it hardware appropriate to do it's job.

Take a look as a TiVo, for example. It performs most of the non-PC functions that Microsoft's Media Center PCs do. Ignore the monthly subscription for a moment. It's cheaper, smaller, does the job it was intended to do, it easy to use, requires no maintainance... It's an appliance first, not a PC. It's hardware is fairly limited (a series 1 TiVo has a 50MHz processor an 32MB of RAM, I think, with an MPEG-2 hardware encoder / decoder to do most of the actual work), cheap to manufacture, and doesn't run Windows (it actually runs Linux).

Personally, I think that something like a TiVo with some additional functionality is a better idea overall than having a PC that just happens to do the same job. Most people already have a PC of some sort anyway, maybe two or more. Why would you want yet another machine that does the exact same stuff that your current one does, costs a lot more, and needs to be in the living room to work properly? For that kind of price, you can buy a brand new normal PC that does PC stuff better than a MCPC would, and something like a TiVo to do that side of things (probably better anyway), with money left over for something else. It doesn't make sense, so I don't think it's going to get far beyond the early adopter crowd, many of whom are capable of building their own anyway.

So, from the HTPC side... Dedicated devices that do all the usual HTPC stuff, and a few bits you might currently use your PC for, but they do not need to be anywhere near as complex as Microsoft's idea. You could probably get away with a 200-400MHz ARM or PowerPC CPU (small, cool, quiet, low power usage), dedicated MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4) encoder and decoder hardware (of digital TV input - no encoder required), a decent sized hard drive, and a DVD/CD drive (maybe a burner). Maybe network hardware, so you can listen to 'net radio streams, or watch video over the 'net. Such a machine could be built fairly cheaply (the most expensive component is probably the hard drive), and with appropriate software it would be very, very easy to use. No maintainance required, no patching the thing every week or two, no worrying about it blowing up or crashing...

Think of it as a replacement for a VCR, a DVD player, a CD player, and a PVR. In the US, these boxes are more likely to be provided by pay TV providers, because there is no other way to be able to recieve pay TV. I think some of them are starting to do that anyway (pay a little extra per month, and you get a PVR). In Europe, they're more likely to be sold the same way current DVD players or cable / satellite STBs are, because all STBs use the same standard components, and you can recieve pay TV by obtaining a CAM (which allows the box to decrypt an encrypted signal) and using your pay TV smart card.

On the other side... Laptops, and wireless network connections. That's pretty much where the idea of a PC would logically end up. That's already happening, and I don't see it stopping any time soon.

[Skynet]

Thanks for chiming in on that BA

[InvisixIsLeet]

Source: National Geographic Online - Febuary 24, 2003

Israeli scientists have devised a computer that can perform 330 trillion operations per second, more than 100,000 times the speed of the fastest PC. The secret: It runs on DNA.

A year ago, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, unveiled a programmable molecular computing machine composed of enzymes and DNA molecules instead of silicon microchips. Now the team has gone one step further. In the new device, the single DNA molecule that provides the computer with the input data also provides all the necessary fuel.

The design is considered a giant step in DNA computing. The Guinness World Records last week recognized the computer as "the smallest biological computing device" ever constructed. DNA computing is in its infancy, and its implications are only beginning to be explored. But it could transform the future of computers, especially in pharmaceutical and biomedical applications.

Following Mother Nature's Lead

Biochemical "nanocomputers" already exist in nature; they are manifest in all living things. But they're largely uncontrollable by humans. We cannot, for example, program a tree to calculate the digits of pi. The idea of using DNA to store and process information took off in 1994 when a California scientist first used DNA in a test tube to solve a simple mathematical problem.

Since then, several research groups have proposed designs for DNA computers, but those attempts have relied on an energetic molecule called ATP for fuel. "This re-designed device uses its DNA input as its source of fuel," said Ehud Shapiro, who led the Israeli research team.

Think of DNA as software, and enzymes as hardware. Put them together in a test tube. The way in which these molecules undergo chemical reactions with each other allows simple operations to be performed as a byproduct of the reactions. The scientists tell the devices what to do by controlling the composition of the DNA software molecules. It's a completely different approach to pushing electrons around a dry circuit in a conventional computer.

To the naked eye, the DNA computer looks like clear water solution in a test tube. There is no mechanical device. A trillion bio-molecular devices could fit into a single drop of water. Instead of showing up on a computer screen, results are analyzed using a technique that allows scientists to see the length of the DNA output molecule.

"Once the input, software, and hardware molecules are mixed in a solution it operates to completion without intervention," said David Hawksett, the science judge at Guinness World Records. "If you want to present the output to the naked eye, human manipulation is needed."

Don't Run to the PC Store Just Yet

As of now, the DNA computer can only perform rudimentary functions, and it has no practical applications. "Our computer is programmable, but it's not universal," said Shapiro. "There are computing tasks it inherently can't do."

The device can check whether a list of zeros and ones has an even number of ones. The computer cannot count how many ones are in a list, since it has a finite memory and the number of ones might exceed its memory size. Also, it can only answer yes or no to a question. It can't, for example, correct a misspelled word.

In terms of speed and size, however, DNA computers surpass conventional computers. While scientists say silicon chips cannot be scaled down much further, the DNA molecule found in the nucleus of all cells can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion music CDs. A spoonful of Shapiro's "computer soup" contains 15,000 trillion computers. And its energy-efficiency is more than a million times that of a PC.

While a desktop PC is designed to perform one calculation very fast, DNA strands produce billions of potential answers simultaneously. This makes the DNA computer suitable for solving "fuzzy logic" problems that have many possible solutions rather than the either/or logic of binary computers. In the future, some speculate, there may be hybrid machines that use traditional silicon for normal processing tasks but have DNA co-processors that can take over specific tasks they would be more suitable for.

Doctors in a Cell

Perhaps most importantly, DNA computing devices could revolutionize the pharmaceutical and biomedical fields. Some scientists predict a future where our bodies are patrolled by tiny DNA computers that monitor our well-being and release the right drugs to repair damaged or unhealthy tissue.

"Autonomous bio-molecular computers may be able to work as 'doctors in a cell,' operating inside living cells and sensing anomalies in the host," said Shapiro. "Consulting their programmed medical knowledge, the computers could respond to anomalies by synthesizing and releasing drugs."

DNA computing research is going so fast that its potential is still emerging. "This is an area of research that leaves the science fiction writers struggling to keep up," said Hawksett from the Guinness World Records.

A summary of the research conducted by scientists at the Weitzmann Institute of Science is published in today's online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[Caboose]

old Zenith IBM compatible PC. That machine was built & sold in 1984. It looks and runs very similar to what we know PCs to be today. So, what we use now is basically the 'same' thing we've had for over 20 years so is it farfetched to think anybody will change anytime soon? I don't think so.

I don't think that in 1984 they had a GUI based OS.

[SuperMegatron]

I don't think that in 1984 they had a GUI based OS.

The Apple Macintosh will make sure 1984 isnt like 1984.

[Roofus]

old Zenith IBM compatible PC. That machine was built & sold in 1984. It looks and runs very similar to what we know PCs to be today. So, what we use now is basically the 'same' thing we've had for over 20 years so is it farfetched to think anybody will change anytime soon? I don't think so.

I don't think that in 1984 they had a GUI based OS.

They had them in 1978