Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 28 May 2005.
Nice column there Wil,
I like to do several things at once whilst at my computer, but i also want to get my moneysworth from my computer in games. I think dual core is the way forward, but it maybe a while before the enthusiast market are happy with what it can do.
But comparitively how big is the enthusiast market compared to mainstream? As far as i can remember Intel have always catered to the mainstream with little effort for the enthusiasts unlike AMD, who, now are also going down the intel route a lot more. It ends up the motherboard manufacturers catering for everyone.
43% of the public dont have a computer?!?!?
Wow. I knew there would be a fair few but almost 1 in 2 people? *stunned*
I just hope we dont all end up with idiot proof bloatware at the loss of performance. Oh wait a minute, thats Windows XP!
Percentage-wise small, but in numbers world-wide a heck of a lot of people, and people who'll rush to pay over the odds for the latest thing. And they drag the mainstream behind in the slipstream. Bit like cars, always got to have a newer model in the wings.
They used to say wars spurred technical development; now it's a popular game.
Having used dualies at work on and off over the years, I'd definitely tade a bit ot single-threaded peformance for the greater responsiveness of dual processing. Does 2.3Ghz 'suck' at games or is it just not as good as 3.8? Sure for someone that buy the latest chip to get max framerates then this chip isn't it. But for someone like me more likely to have a browser and mail and hell knows wwaht else runnign in the background, its definely the way forward.
43%!!!! I guess thats for the whole population, including kids and people near death... rather than people who will actually use/buy the thing. Statistics for large numbers of things never really add up.
One major thing is, how many people need/can buy there own computer?, most people share a computer or if there lucky loaned one from work.
If there is a family of 5 people, on average you may have 1 computer for the whole household "family pc", and maybe a laptop for Dad/Mum or even a teenager with there own computer. Then theres the extreme case, the enthusiast/professional... obviously they will have there main pc, mabye a secoundary, a laptop, a pda, a media pc and even a server.
Chances are the 44% are kids, elderly and people not so well off so this statement: "What Intel has realised is that extra performance does not matter to these people" is totally true. It would make more sense educating these people on how easy to use they are and why they need one. Maybe if Intel were to work with somone like Dell and the Government to have a special plan for these people, cheap computers for elderly/young/poor, a good way to make these people aware of there "need" for a computer is to offer free lessons in varios local places like librarys etc.
Im kinda off topic amd probbably just talking crap but just thought id try and make a contribution... premptive apollogy
Nice article tho
43% may not have a computer BUT i'd bet over 90% have access to one
Data from 2002 UK survey:
54% of homes had a 'puter
80% of 2-parent kids had home access, 70% online.
But ~50% of 1-parent kids had home access, 36% on-line.
But the UK figure is higher than many 1st-world countries (thanks to Sir Clive).
Even so, Intel's data must be years out of date - I can't believe the 46% without in 2002 hasn't fallen more drastically than 3%.
gotta agree with the mce05 comments.
had it a month now, never going back.
<3 microsoft and intel
I'm looking to set up a media center comp, really tempted to use the OS. Anyone happen to know if an ATI remote wonder would work with it as the main remote or if I'd have to pick up the MS one or an equivalent? Got a RW spare and dont' feel like spending the ~$35 on the remote if I don't need to, not to mention the ATI RW is RF not IR = don't care about walls.
Very interesting article... that figure was quite shocking to me as well. Intel is REALLY making a good move with the initial prices being so low compared to the AMD DC setups (although, the AMD X2's do look more powerful, a bit of googling shows that it's only $241 for the PD 820 vs over twice that for the X2 4200+). I can see these coming into Dells and whatnot very soon, since Intel is quite right when they acknowledge how people do NOT want to have that virus scan be anything more than a background process.
So people don't "need" the extra performance of anything over a PII running Win98, but when background apps can actually run in the background and you don't notice them, it's great. With the P4 630 weighing in only $20 less than the 820, you've gotta think how good of a deal that is, since you're basically getting a second processor for $20 without the need for a special board (save a 945/955 chipset) or any of that other poo you tend to have to deal with on SMP systems.
I was originally planning to use my old NF7S/2600+M setup for a media center, but these things are VERY tempting (except for the obvious fact I'd need to buy stuff). Still, I just found a cheap 945 Gigabyte board for $140, get a DC proc for $240, a 512mb stick of DDR2-667 for $80, grab a cheap tuner and it's still not too expensive for a pretty decent setup. I'm just hoping PCIE tuners are out soon... ATI should have the PCIE Theatre 550 part available by now...*evileye*
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the DRM incorporated at the hardware level in this new processor. I'm interested in what Intel had to say about this at the conference, or if it was glossed over completely which is what I suspect. More info here .
I never saw THAT in the spec sheet...thanks, pezboy. Ladies and gentlemen, hold on to your hats, Big Brother is going to give us a ride.
EDIT: Oh, and a second little undermentioned "feature"...anyone take a look at this IDE redirect? Hmmmm...how many idiots does it take to make a chip with a guranteed hacker exploit?
Networking through the BIOS...BAD.
Separate names with a comma.