I bought a laptop, thinking I would only use it when I traveled. Turns out I didn't use my desktop/PC/tower again, despite it being pretty new and way more powerful than my laptop. The one exception was the very little gaming I wanted to do.
Later I bought myself my current laptop. It's a MacBook Pro, and was obscenely expensive, but it is, by far, the best value computer I've ever owned. I have Windows installed, for gaming reasons, and while I've not tried any of the latest big titles (I simply don't pay money for things like Shooty Drivey Explosion Game number 76) it's played everything without issue. And now there is Steam for OSX, I enjoyed the forum TF2 sessions without needing to switch OS with Bootcamp, and lately I've been playing CS:S. Overall I'm not a big gamer though, so this probably isn't good enough for most people on the forum.
To be honest, at home I use an external monitor (for a dual screen setup) and an external keyboard and trackpad. It has an SSD inside, and I constantly carry archive and backup hard drives.
I simply couldn't function without it.
Over New Year I went to a small juggling convention, and I functioned for a while without my laptop. Actually, that is total bullshit, because I used it to edit photos and do photoshopping and play music and edit videos and watch DVDs. But I didn't have internet access on my laptop, and the "personal hotspot" function didn't seem to work. So I had to use the 3G on my phone for all internet functionality.
And you know what? I found it almost impossible! At home and in Berlin I use my phone all the time for checking things on the internet, and now I have Siri this has become way easier. But that's all the phone is really good for: checking. Reading is fine. Watching YouTube videos is okay. But even after four days of browsing this forum ONLY in the phone, it got tedious.
At home I check stuff, but I know that as soon as I need to work, my laptop is close by, or waiting for me at home. The same when I leave it in my hotel room or in my cabin when traveling.
For now my smartphone fulfills all all the checking and small consumption needs, and some communication. The rest of my needs are met and exceeded by my laptop. It'll take a long time for a tablet or smartphone style device to meet those bigger needs for me, but many people, I think don't have anywhere near the same requirements.
Honestly I don't see a reason for a console to exist at this point, you can easily put a cheap gaming computer next to a TV and use an wireless X-box controller to play most "console" games you want (legally, illegally all of them :-p) as well as do every other task you'd ever want to do. I have a powerful desktop that I primarily use for gaming, my old desktop is attached to a TV for netflixing and whatever else, a few old consoles I hardly ever use anymore lay around for whatever reason. I have a pretty powerful laptop loaded with indie games to play when I'm out, a Tablet with android on it to use to read comics/netlfix and internet when the laptop is not useful or bulky, and a 3DS and a smart phone for when I really want to travel light. However, since I primarily game, the desktop with steam gets the most use. No game has risen to the need to buy one of the modern consoles (though I do own a wii) that doesn't eventually come out on the PC (though a few months years later).
Nah Dark Souls is a super duper hard action RPG with ridiculously interesting multiplayer components and bomb ass world design. If you just run into a fight and swing around wildly, you die in a few seconds.
Also side fan gushing note about the multiplayer: the lead designer came up with the mechanics when he was driving around Poland (I think??) and his car died. A stranger stopped to help him, but being a polish dude and a japanese dude, the two couldn't talk to each other; but the guy managed to help him get his car fixed and back on the road.
So yeah it has this cool co-op system where you really can't play with your friends, but can really only summon strangers who you can't talk to, and they simply disappear after your task is finished (killing a boss).
Isn't Dark Souls just another one of those games where all you do is walk around and hit things? Why are these games so popular?
I don't mean this in a snarky or mean way, but not everyone is you. A lot of people, myself included, get a kick out of games like Dark Souls. I can understand why you don't, but the majority of people like that sort of thing. Same reason people liked Streets of Rage or the old X-Men arcade game. New tech, same genre.
Also, it's an Action RPG, and Famitsu gave it a 37 (9, 9, 9, 10), so it must have something good going for it. Like johndis mentioned, I hear the co-op summoning is awesome; Dave made it sound really cool on a recent episode of Fast Karate (hence my Damien Septuccini comment earlier).
Isn't Dark Souls just another one of those games where all you do is walk around and hit things? Why are these games so popular?
I could try to explain and make you understand the difference between different types of games where you walk around and hit things, but because I know it would be time wasted, I make fun of you instead.
I wonder that sometimes, while also wondering why games where all you do is walk around and click things games are popular. Or games where you walk around and jump over or top of things. Or games where you don't walk and just click things. Or games where you just hit things. Or games where you just drive around. Or games where you react to music. Or games where you just manipulate numbers to get bigger numbers.
Remember Scott if you feel that saying that every game where you walk around and hit things are all the same I can argue that CS:S, TF2 and NS and Tribes2 are all the same.
Scott, at the end of the day, we can dumb down the gameplay mechanics of the games you like as well to make you sound like you're playing dumb games with no depth. You're allowed to enjoy what you like, but going around insulting entire genres of gaming isn't going to win you any arguments, it's going to make us disagree with you even more.
Regarding coding in a "real" OS, people have managed to get Ubuntu running alongside Android. So far, nobody's figured out how to replace Android with Ubuntu, but it does demonstrate that it's feasible to run "real" software on the hardware that's out there today. I'm betting that there are people who have figured out how to run more hardcore versions of Linux on these devices as well.
Interface is hardly a problem, given the options that exist for USB displays and input devices.
4G is certainly "real, fast Internet." No, it's not FiOS, but seriously, what do you do with FiOS? I just ran a speed test and got 22 mbps down/4.3 mbps up on 4G - that should be fast enough to get just about anything you want in a reasonable span of time. It's more than fast enough to stream 720p video, whatever audio I want, and grab files of just about any type. And if you're concerned about various video apps giving you less than full functionality, you still have the option to visit the full site and run from there. My Galaxy Nexus does that just fine.
As for media creation and editing, just how much computing power do you really need for that? We have phones with dual-core 1.5 gHz processors and 1 GB of RAM. The memory is low, but I doubt that will continue to be the case in, say, two years. I'm betting you can do entry-level video editing on this hardware. Hell, we've done all kinds of video editing on weaker hardware in the past.
Does the typical consumer actually need that much power to do the level of media editing they tend to do?
Regarding databases, I'm not sure what you think constitutes a "large" database, so all I can do is repeat the previous question: just how much power do you actually need to work with a "real" databases.
I can grant that, for now, professional-grade applications are probably beyond the scope of handheld devices. However, I think most consumer-level applications, and even the majority of semi-pro applications, could be accomplished by the hardware we've got right now. In two or three years, I think handheld devices will easily have the power to run "real" applications. I mean, people used to run ProTools on much slower hardware than we have now.
Games will be an issue until someone designs a mobile GPU add-on. Which, frankly, could be done in the near future. Really, once someone puts a real OS on one of these newer powerful phones, I think we're going to see some really interesting things starting to happen.
Games are all about interface, phones will never be a good gaming devices because phones are not good controllers. Until we are jacking into our brains or wearing electronic clothing with whatever future crap is coming down the road.
Games are all about interface, phones will never be good gaming devices because phones are not good controllers. Until we are jacking into our brains or wearing electronic clothing with whatever future crap is coming down the road.
Right, but again, bluetooth keyboards and mice exist. The actual computing hardware is already miniaturized, and you can get very compact interface devices as well.
Games are all about interface, phones will never be a good gaming devices because phones are not good controllers. Until we are jacking into our brains or wearing electronic clothing with whatever future crap is coming down the road.
There's really no need for a mobile GPU add on or a "real" OS on mobile devices. And, if anything, mobile OSes should be teaching us that an OS (for the majority of people) should simply be a light and unobtrusive platform for running applications. Shouldn't have to fiddle with its bits or even really bother with it in any way to "maximize performance" or whatever.
And in reference to graphics, I honestly can't fathom what else is necessary when you already have stuff like Infinity Blade running on tiny ass phones.
4G is fast enough bandwidth wise for your basic Internetting. The problem with 4G, and all wireless Internet, is that no matter how much bandwidth there is, the latency is enormous. You could have 40gigabits both ways on 10G wireless, but your ping will be ludicrously high. If your ping is 1000ms that means there is a one second delay before your YouTube video downloads instantly. That feels like fast Internet. Then you try to play Counter-Strike and it is unplayable because there is a one second delay on everything.
For media creation, phones are not even close to having the horsepower, let alone the interface, necessary for real work. A render of a 1080p video on even the highest end i7 with multiple gigs of RAM can take hours. That doesn't include the encoding, or transcoding to multiple formats. It also doesn't include if it was a 3D animation that has additional hours of rendering time. Phones won't be doing that pretty much ever. Even when we get to the point where phones are as powerful as desktops are today, the desktops of that time will be so much better. The videos you are rendering will be that much higher quality and those phones will only be able to render the 1080p videos of today, not the 4K or 10K videos of their era.
Does the typical consumer need it? This is the same issue that comes up again and again. Rym said he didn't need a phone with a camera in it. He said he didn't need tabbed browsing. Once he got tabbed browsing and a phone with a camera, you won't see him go without it. When people weren't literate they didn't need to read. The power to do something comes FIRST. We have to empower people to do things even when they don't feel they have a need for that power. Then and only then do we advance. And when you receive that power, if even then you are not using it, then the problem is on you for not being all you can be.
A real database takes up gigs of RAM, depending on how much data is in it.
Also, you clearly seem to think that the dual core 1.5GHz CPU in your phone is the same as a dual core 1.5GHz CPU in a desktop. Not even close. I could make a ten core 5GHz chip that only has one adder per core. It will be pretty fast at adding numbers together. It will be really slow at anything else. The CPUs in your phone are not bad, but are nowhere near as powerful as what is in a real machine. You can't just compare number of cores and clock speed.
Lastly, batteries. Phones and even laptops have batteries. That significantly reduces performance across the board. All battery powered devices sacrifice performance for battery life. You know why desktop GPUs are so fast? They don't give a fuck about power usage. That's why they have big ass fans and two extra power cables going into them. If you want to do any real work, you need to be plugged into the wall. Desktop computers give you the most performance, and the most performance per dollar. For less than the cost of a phone you can get a desktop that is an order of magnitude more powerful.
I couldn't live without at least one desktop. I have a Macbook for iOS development and chillin', custom 17" i7 laptop with NVidia 555GT GPU for gaming and Windows development, Mac Mini as my desktop, Android tablet cos I wanted to play with Android and as a PDF reader, iPhone 4 for testing, and a half built box that's gonna run Vmware ESXi. I could probably make do with just one of the laptops as the Macbook has Windows 7 in bootcamp, and the other has OS X in VMWare Player.
I think it's down to personal preference; some (myself included) like to separate their work machine from their messing around machine. I also think that for any serious work, a desktop is essential, for many of the reasons Apreche has already listed. Also greediness and candy canes.
Simplest solution would be just to try it out and see if you find yourself needing one.
Actually, my latency isn't terrible on 4G. 80 ms is pretty typical. I'd prefer lower latency, like 15 or so, but I can deal with 80 no problem.
You're right about the more fundamental differences between mobile and desktop processors, but how great is the difference? Got some tech articles explaining the differences in architecture? As John pointed out, I can run some pretty intensive stuff on the hardware I've got.
I'd still like to know what is meant by a "real" database. I work with an international database managed by the CDC, comparing subtyping information on microbial isolates in real time, in order to detect and monitor outbreaks. I'm not sure what kinds of data you'd be manipulating in a "real" database - maybe the millions of stock market transactions that happen every day - but I know that there's a lot of information to manage in the database I use, and it often needs to do some pretty complex operations on those data, and it doesn't exactly need a beast of a workstation to do that. Granted, I've got a quad-core 2.4 gHz desktop with 3 GB of RAM to do those manipulations. It'll probably be a while before phones get anywhere near that.
So I guess the thing we need to know is the rate of development of the two platforms. Are handhelds developing faster than desktops now? If so, it's possible for them to eclipse desktops. And of course, since this is largely going to be market-driven, hardware manufacturers are going to pump their resources into whatever seems to be the most profitable.
It's entirely plausible that enough manufacturers will focus enough resources on handheld development to have it actually eclipse desktop development.
The architectural difference is that desktop CPUs are just bigger. They have more on them. Transistors are transistors, and all we can do now is make them smaller. If we do make them smaller, we can fit more in less space. When we do that all processors get faster, mobile or otherwise. But desktop processors don't care about saving electricity, and they are physically bigger, which means more transistors total. They will always be faster than mobile processors. An eclipse is not possible.
A real database is a large multi-user relational database. Generally they store all or most of their data in memory and perform an enormous number of queries per second. The database running this forum takes up hundreds of megabytes of RAM and uses about half the CPU of the server all the time. For an actual web site with a real number of users, forget it.
The point is you are falsely separating mobile from desktop. CPUs are CPUs. Chips are chips. If we discover something to make CPUs faster, they all get faster. Mobile phones are just small computers. They will always be slower than big computers. They purposefully give up performance because battery life and size are higher priorities.
Wires are always going to be faster than wireless because a beam of light over a fiber optic cable is as fast as the speed of light, and doesn't have to deal with any of the interference or unreliability of going through the air.
Why are we comparing phones to desktops? No one is suggesting that their phone is a good substitute for a desktop, but rather that they might not need anything that their phone can't deliver, and that phones have the upsides of being tiny. Now, I think it's pretty silly to use a phone as your primary computing device, because the screen is tiny, but a tablet or small laptop I could see.
Those Intel Ultrabook laptops are really powerful from what I've heard, and they're light and slim. To me that seems ideal for someone wanting to do light computing, but not be restricted by their platform.
Dark Souls is a JRPG with a really well designed Metroid-vania world. The combat is there. But there's also as much exploration and discovering secrets about the world. And it has really good sense of atmosphere. It does also help that the combat is really fun. Shame I suck at PvP =P
Comments
Later I bought myself my current laptop. It's a MacBook Pro, and was obscenely expensive, but it is, by far, the best value computer I've ever owned. I have Windows installed, for gaming reasons, and while I've not tried any of the latest big titles (I simply don't pay money for things like Shooty Drivey Explosion Game number 76) it's played everything without issue. And now there is Steam for OSX, I enjoyed the forum TF2 sessions without needing to switch OS with Bootcamp, and lately I've been playing CS:S. Overall I'm not a big gamer though, so this probably isn't good enough for most people on the forum.
To be honest, at home I use an external monitor (for a dual screen setup) and an external keyboard and trackpad. It has an SSD inside, and I constantly carry archive and backup hard drives.
I simply couldn't function without it.
Over New Year I went to a small juggling convention, and I functioned for a while without my laptop. Actually, that is total bullshit, because I used it to edit photos and do photoshopping and play music and edit videos and watch DVDs. But I didn't have internet access on my laptop, and the "personal hotspot" function didn't seem to work. So I had to use the 3G on my phone for all internet functionality.
And you know what? I found it almost impossible! At home and in Berlin I use my phone all the time for checking things on the internet, and now I have Siri this has become way easier. But that's all the phone is really good for: checking. Reading is fine. Watching YouTube videos is okay. But even after four days of browsing this forum ONLY in the phone, it got tedious.
At home I check stuff, but I know that as soon as I need to work, my laptop is close by, or waiting for me at home. The same when I leave it in my hotel room or in my cabin when traveling.
For now my smartphone fulfills all all the checking and small consumption needs, and some communication. The rest of my needs are met and exceeded by my laptop. It'll take a long time for a tablet or smartphone style device to meet those bigger needs for me, but many people, I think don't have anywhere near the same requirements.
Also side fan gushing note about the multiplayer: the lead designer came up with the mechanics when he was driving around Poland (I think??) and his car died. A stranger stopped to help him, but being a polish dude and a japanese dude, the two couldn't talk to each other; but the guy managed to help him get his car fixed and back on the road.
So yeah it has this cool co-op system where you really can't play with your friends, but can really only summon strangers who you can't talk to, and they simply disappear after your task is finished (killing a boss).
Also, it's an Action RPG, and Famitsu gave it a 37 (9, 9, 9, 10), so it must have something good going for it. Like johndis mentioned, I hear the co-op summoning is awesome; Dave made it sound really cool on a recent episode of Fast Karate (hence my Damien Septuccini comment earlier).
I wonder that sometimes, while also wondering why games where all you do is walk around and click things games are popular. Or games where you walk around and jump over or top of things. Or games where you don't walk and just click things. Or games where you just hit things. Or games where you just drive around. Or games where you react to music. Or games where you just manipulate numbers to get bigger numbers.
Remember Scott if you feel that saying that every game where you walk around and hit things are all the same I can argue that CS:S, TF2 and NS and Tribes2 are all the same.
Interface is hardly a problem, given the options that exist for USB displays and input devices.
4G is certainly "real, fast Internet." No, it's not FiOS, but seriously, what do you do with FiOS? I just ran a speed test and got 22 mbps down/4.3 mbps up on 4G - that should be fast enough to get just about anything you want in a reasonable span of time. It's more than fast enough to stream 720p video, whatever audio I want, and grab files of just about any type. And if you're concerned about various video apps giving you less than full functionality, you still have the option to visit the full site and run from there. My Galaxy Nexus does that just fine.
As for media creation and editing, just how much computing power do you really need for that? We have phones with dual-core 1.5 gHz processors and 1 GB of RAM. The memory is low, but I doubt that will continue to be the case in, say, two years. I'm betting you can do entry-level video editing on this hardware. Hell, we've done all kinds of video editing on weaker hardware in the past.
Does the typical consumer actually need that much power to do the level of media editing they tend to do?
Regarding databases, I'm not sure what you think constitutes a "large" database, so all I can do is repeat the previous question: just how much power do you actually need to work with a "real" databases.
I can grant that, for now, professional-grade applications are probably beyond the scope of handheld devices. However, I think most consumer-level applications, and even the majority of semi-pro applications, could be accomplished by the hardware we've got right now. In two or three years, I think handheld devices will easily have the power to run "real" applications. I mean, people used to run ProTools on much slower hardware than we have now.
Games will be an issue until someone designs a mobile GPU add-on. Which, frankly, could be done in the near future. Really, once someone puts a real OS on one of these newer powerful phones, I think we're going to see some really interesting things starting to happen.
And in reference to graphics, I honestly can't fathom what else is necessary when you already have stuff like Infinity Blade running on tiny ass phones.
For media creation, phones are not even close to having the horsepower, let alone the interface, necessary for real work. A render of a 1080p video on even the highest end i7 with multiple gigs of RAM can take hours. That doesn't include the encoding, or transcoding to multiple formats. It also doesn't include if it was a 3D animation that has additional hours of rendering time. Phones won't be doing that pretty much ever. Even when we get to the point where phones are as powerful as desktops are today, the desktops of that time will be so much better. The videos you are rendering will be that much higher quality and those phones will only be able to render the 1080p videos of today, not the 4K or 10K videos of their era.
Does the typical consumer need it? This is the same issue that comes up again and again. Rym said he didn't need a phone with a camera in it. He said he didn't need tabbed browsing. Once he got tabbed browsing and a phone with a camera, you won't see him go without it. When people weren't literate they didn't need to read. The power to do something comes FIRST. We have to empower people to do things even when they don't feel they have a need for that power. Then and only then do we advance. And when you receive that power, if even then you are not using it, then the problem is on you for not being all you can be.
A real database takes up gigs of RAM, depending on how much data is in it.
Also, you clearly seem to think that the dual core 1.5GHz CPU in your phone is the same as a dual core 1.5GHz CPU in a desktop. Not even close. I could make a ten core 5GHz chip that only has one adder per core. It will be pretty fast at adding numbers together. It will be really slow at anything else. The CPUs in your phone are not bad, but are nowhere near as powerful as what is in a real machine. You can't just compare number of cores and clock speed.
Lastly, batteries. Phones and even laptops have batteries. That significantly reduces performance across the board. All battery powered devices sacrifice performance for battery life. You know why desktop GPUs are so fast? They don't give a fuck about power usage. That's why they have big ass fans and two extra power cables going into them. If you want to do any real work, you need to be plugged into the wall. Desktop computers give you the most performance, and the most performance per dollar. For less than the cost of a phone you can get a desktop that is an order of magnitude more powerful.
I think it's down to personal preference; some (myself included) like to separate their work machine from their messing around machine. I also think that for any serious work, a desktop is essential, for many of the reasons Apreche has already listed. Also greediness and candy canes.
Simplest solution would be just to try it out and see if you find yourself needing one.
You're right about the more fundamental differences between mobile and desktop processors, but how great is the difference? Got some tech articles explaining the differences in architecture? As John pointed out, I can run some pretty intensive stuff on the hardware I've got.
I'd still like to know what is meant by a "real" database. I work with an international database managed by the CDC, comparing subtyping information on microbial isolates in real time, in order to detect and monitor outbreaks. I'm not sure what kinds of data you'd be manipulating in a "real" database - maybe the millions of stock market transactions that happen every day - but I know that there's a lot of information to manage in the database I use, and it often needs to do some pretty complex operations on those data, and it doesn't exactly need a beast of a workstation to do that. Granted, I've got a quad-core 2.4 gHz desktop with 3 GB of RAM to do those manipulations. It'll probably be a while before phones get anywhere near that.
So I guess the thing we need to know is the rate of development of the two platforms. Are handhelds developing faster than desktops now? If so, it's possible for them to eclipse desktops. And of course, since this is largely going to be market-driven, hardware manufacturers are going to pump their resources into whatever seems to be the most profitable.
It's entirely plausible that enough manufacturers will focus enough resources on handheld development to have it actually eclipse desktop development.
I suppose we'll see.
A real database is a large multi-user relational database. Generally they store all or most of their data in memory and perform an enormous number of queries per second. The database running this forum takes up hundreds of megabytes of RAM and uses about half the CPU of the server all the time. For an actual web site with a real number of users, forget it.
The point is you are falsely separating mobile from desktop. CPUs are CPUs. Chips are chips. If we discover something to make CPUs faster, they all get faster. Mobile phones are just small computers. They will always be slower than big computers. They purposefully give up performance because battery life and size are higher priorities.
Wires are always going to be faster than wireless because a beam of light over a fiber optic cable is as fast as the speed of light, and doesn't have to deal with any of the interference or unreliability of going through the air.
Those Intel Ultrabook laptops are really powerful from what I've heard, and they're light and slim. To me that seems ideal for someone wanting to do light computing, but not be restricted by their platform.
Dark Souls is a JRPG with a really well designed Metroid-vania world. The combat is there. But there's also as much exploration and discovering secrets about the world. And it has really good sense of atmosphere. It does also help that the combat is really fun. Shame I suck at PvP =P