daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/12/91)
In article <caw.1675@miroc.Chi.IL.US> caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: >In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >>is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, That depends greatly on why you own a computer. Certainly, if your main reason is "to own a hot computer", you'll be upgrading as soon as possible, since a computer never looks hot for long; there's always something hotter out next year. If you have other interests in keeping up with the latest, maybe you're a developer, you also will probably upgrade as soon as you can. Beyond that, the A3000, or from a larger viewpoint, A3000-class machines, which include Mac IIs and '386/'486 PClones, may very well be the last computers many people buy, at least for themselves. >>In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look like a toy. >And in that same couple of years the high-end Mac's won't look like a toy >either? Or i486 based machines? Or even a SPARC 1? They aren't going to look like toys, and the reason for this is that computers are catching up to humans. They have been for awhile, and they have a ways to go, but they're getting close to being able to serve most people as well as they need to be served. Human expectations about computers have been changing over the years, but humans themselves haven't been. Your eye is still going to be basically happy with 300DPI proofs and no more than 24 bit color 200 years from now. Each generation of new systems has been extending the reach of the computer, certainly, but after each generation, fewer users, as a percentage, move on to the next one. You don't meet too many people still using CP/M. Lots still use MS-DOS, and have no desire to move on to a GUI-based OS. On the home front, most people upgraded from their PET/TRS-80 type machines. A good number upgraded from the C64 generation, but there are still folks who are happy with them. By the time there's an obvious replacement for the A500 at the base level of home computers, you'll find some upgrades, but eventually, there won't be an overwhelming reason to go to the next big thing. Even if it's not as flashy, if your current machine does everything you could possibly ask of it, you won't upgrade it. Why spend the money? Same reason the vast majority of people in the country don't drive performance cars, or own top of the line stereo systems, or camera systems. What they have does everything they're prepared to ask of the system. It'll certainly take a bit longer in businesses, but it is happening already. With every generation of PClones that comes along, there are fewer systems that need replacing. In business, that doesn't mean it won't get replaced, but what kind of computer do you really need if all you're interested in is WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. In the scientific and engineering markets, people will always be willing to pay for more and more. That's because the of nature of the problems they attack with computers. Today's computers don't solve these problems well enough. In fact, I'm writing this while I'm waiting for a simulation to finish on our VAX 6420. That's an expensive computer, but not fast enough. Our Chip guys all have SparcStations on their desk, which also aren't fast enough, but they're better than having everyone on the VAX. The new generation of workstations, like HP's Snakes and whatever Sun replaces it's SparcStation 2 with, are also not fast enough, but they're an improvement. If they ever do get fast enough, we have no obvious insentive to upgrade anymore. It won't be cost effective, if all we get is an unnecessary speed improvement. At that point, someone has to figure out how to solve the problem "better", and make that better solution require a faster computer, before they're any point in upgrading. Most people, business and home alike, need a good reason to buy a new computer. Doing the same old thing with 90% CPU idle time rather than 40% CPU idle time wouldn't get my money, and would not relegate my current machine to "toy" status, no matter what fancier toys are out there. If someone comes up with a fundamentally new way to use a computer that's overwhelmingly attractive, and mine can't be presuaded to do that thing very well, then you might convince me. But major changes don't come along that often. In all of practical computer history, we've gone from punched cards to text and finally graphics interfaces. All in the last 30 years (eg, my lifetime), but pretty much all of computer history outside of ivory tower stuff. And at this point, just about anyone can sit down and use a computer without knowing much about it. I don't think we have much farther to go, any other major improvments are just gravy. At least until we get to the direct brain interface. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) (06/12/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. Actually, that should be "direct neural interface." But you wouldn't want one of those anyways, since the side-effects seem to be rather bad, with a tendency for the user and system to, uh, "merge." <He-he.> Okay, okay...I'll just quietly go away and read a book instead of TV... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions are those of the user, and not of this machine.
mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Michael N. Chapman) (06/12/91)
Dave, I have to disagree about computers. I think people will always be willing to buy the most advanced computers they can afford. It'll take alot more power, for example, than the A3000 has to do truly realistic games. It'd take probably more than a Cray Y-mp. I know it would, in fact. So, there's no end to even the home market. As technology cheapens, people will keep buying better and better systems.
And one more thing - I want 24-bit standard before I buy another Amiga. Right now I have a 1000 with 1.25megs RAM and a 40mg HD. As soon as there's real support for 24-bit in an Amiga, I'll be the FIRST to buy it. I may break down and get a 3000 and get one of the third party boards...
--
// | Email: mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu
// |
\\ // Where the REAL power is. | From the desk of Michael Chapman
\X/ IBM, Mac, get REAL! |gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (06/12/91)
From article <1991Jun11.224608.18374@cs.cornell.edu>, by johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee): > Actually, that should be "direct neural interface." But you wouldn't want > one of those anyways, since the side-effects seem to be rather bad, with > a tendency for the user and system to, uh, "merge." <He-he.> Oh, that's no problem, you could just take over the world's computer networks, and have a spaceship built (now that your IQ is higher than any known to man), and then just go to the center of the universe... :D > Okay, okay...I'll just quietly go away and read a book instead of TV... I've got STTNG books... :D Greg -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/12/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <caw.1675@miroc.Chi.IL.US> caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: >>In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >>>You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >>>is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, >>>In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look like a toy. > >They aren't going to look like toys, and the reason for this is that computers >are catching up to humans. They have been for awhile, and they have a ways to >go, but they're getting close to being able to serve most people as well as >they need to be served. Human expectations about computers have been changing >over the years, but humans themselves haven't been. Well, but there are still goals. Only think about speech control/recognition. I think this will be one of the last steps in principal computer develop- ment. On the other hand I don't give much future to that Pad technology with handwriting recognition. I fear a normal keyboard serves you better and more comfortably, but this is a personal guess. But to implement things like speech recognition you will sure have to add some steps in processing power. And I fear you need big steps. The computers developped through this will sure let our today's ones look like toys. But I believe it will be more than 2 years, 5 at least. (Yes, I saw that IBM prototype in an AT on a fair, but it had a very limited vocabulary, still needed heavy training for the speaker, and I think the effort will increase exponentially when they're going to expand these mentioned limits.) > And at this point, just >about anyone can sit down and use a computer without knowing much about it. I >don't think we have much farther to go, any other major improvments are just >gravy. Hmm, see above. >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. Yes, that would be the next step. And the last will be that computers take over and integrate us into their brain. But I think I won't experience that... -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu (06/12/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. So Dave, is _THIS_ what you guys at Commodore are working on now? Shoot! I forgot, you will be under non-disclosure!! I guess we'll just have to wait. :) > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. > -- bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu College of Business Administration // Amigargnugen! The University of Iowa \X/ It's what makes a computer an Amiga!
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/12/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [stuff deleted] >of computer history outside of ivory tower stuff. And at this point, just >about anyone can sit down and use a computer without knowing much about it. I >don't think we have much farther to go, any other major improvments are just >gravy. > >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. I hope not. I'm looking forward to lots of virtual reality stuff. I see several possibilities opening up. With interactive TV, hi-res displays, CDTV, and ISDN (or other net), there are lots of possibilities. Given that the phone companies are getting into DP services, I can see a new utility springing up. With a decent multiprocessing OS, especially one that recognizes other OSs, you'll be able to increase processing power in smaller steps, but ideally more quickly (pop in a new processor.) If you need a temporary increase in MIPs, tap the utility, or you could even latch onto a pool of idle CPU time from other users. Most people would only be passive users, but I think there would be enough power/generative users that hot hardware would have steady demand.
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (06/12/91)
In <1991Jun11.224608.18374@cs.cornell.edu> johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) writes: >In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>At least until we get to the direct brain interface. > >Actually, that should be "direct neural interface." But you wouldn't want >one of those anyways, since the side-effects seem to be rather bad, with >a tendency for the user and system to, uh, "merge." <He-he.> Huh?!? Don't you know that Real Life = GOD version 0.99 ? We are living in a simulation! When you die (crash), you are debugged (purgatory :) and either recoded (reincarnation) or stored on that-shelf-with-the-C=PET (hell?). But.. this must be a beta release.. There are still some bugs like Commodore people never getting their act together on advertising :) And this really belongs in alt.religion.computers :^) -Thomas. This account expires on 01-Sep-91. No more VR, it's RL now! :) --------------------------------------------------------------- ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science, HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl - Thomas speaking! .sig v3.3 AMIGA / --------------------------------------------------------------- ____ / / / ICE - brain-blasting zombie-making voodoo electronics. \ \ \/ / / --------------------------------------------------------------- \_\_\/_/
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun11.235259.19539@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Michael N. Chapman) writes: >Dave, I have to disagree about computers. You wouldn't happen to have a line feed on that terminal you're typing at, would you? All I get is a single line for each paragraph. Anyway... >I think people will always be willing to buy the most advanced computers they >can afford. Some yes, because, as I mentioned, they are technology collectors. Others are happy with what they have, since it does the job and they're perfectly satisfied with that job, the way it's done. My mom has been perfectly happy with her C128 until just recently, when she needed it to do something it couldn't handle. Last I heard, Jeff Porter's sister still writes novels on her C64. Certainly an Amiga would be a better tool, but why bother with a new computer if you don't need it. You're not seeing that because, like most people, you're a computer enthusiast. In general, people on usenet do actually go out and buy hot new computers when they're released. You probably don't buy the latest and greated sports car, or TV set, or CD player, or weed wacker, or table saw. Other folks treat their computers like I treat my microwave oven; who cares what else is available as long as mine does the job I'm after. >As technology cheapens, people will keep buying better and better systems. You have to make it cheaper and make software for it. Without the software, what I mean by changing the job, the new system doesn't do much most people. If an A500 with 68040, 24 bit graphics, 16x blitter, and hard disk hit the stores tomorrow at an SRP of $800, you wouldn't see any significant video games for it until a significant number of the suckers were sold, it wouldn't make any sense for most software companies to spend extra development time they don't have for an insignificant piece of the market. Obviously, if such a computer like that came out, lots of them would sell quickly. Because, more than anything, hardware innovation is being driven by competition. Software on the Amiga is just barely beyond the A1000, yet hardware's out for A3000. Software on the PClones is largely back at the 8086/8088 systems, yet they're shipping 33MHz '486 hardware. A small segment of both markets needs that extra performance, most of the market growth is simply because it can be done, and if company A doesn't do it, company B will. >And one more thing - I want 24-bit standard before I buy another Amiga. See, even you have limits. You're claiming that a certain level of advancement must be met before you buy a new system. That implys that what you have now is pretty much suiting your needs. If you only had a C64, you couldn't likely wait for a 24 bit color Amiga.... -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <50393@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >I hope not. I'm looking forward to lots of virtual reality stuff. Me too. But for this full fledged virtual reality stuff, you're talking about a boatload of gear beyond the computer. All kinds of stuff to fool senses other than your eyes. You aren't going to get the real thing at the kind of prices most home users can afford. That's why I like the idea of a neural interface; you don't need fancy magic gloves to make your fingers feel that hot, somewhat soft and slippery Boing! ball you just caught. The computer feeds your brain directly. That doesn't have the intrinsic expense of all the clever mechanics you would need to do it today. >Most people would only be passive users, but I think there would be enough >power/generative users that hot hardware would have steady demand. I think there will always be a steady demand. Hopefully a growing demand. You're reaching new people all the time. Some really need to upgrade, like those scientific users. But until something really new comes along, some new way to communicate to computer, some new kind of application generally useful but not served by common machines, etc., fewer and fewer users will really need to upgrade. The job of everyone's Sales and Marketing group, in many cases, is to convince them to upgrade anyway. Like the Power Up! program. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/13/91)
In article <22379@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Me too. But for this full fledged virtual reality stuff, you're talking >about a boatload of gear beyond the computer. All kinds of stuff to fool >senses other than your eyes. You aren't going to get the real thing at >the kind of prices most home users can afford. That's why I like the idea >of a neural interface; you don't need fancy magic gloves to make your fingers >feel that hot, somewhat soft and slippery Boing! ball you just caught. The >computer feeds your brain directly. That doesn't have the intrinsic expense >of all the clever mechanics you would need to do it today. I don't need direct neural input for a reasonable virtual reality. With decent sound and a good viewing environment, I'd take the version we are likely to have in reach in a decade or two. Equipment cost isn't that big a deal if things explode the way I think they might if everything came together right. It is easier to project that than the kind of advances we'd need to get neural input to the senses/brain. Besides, even if the input is induced without direct-connect, there would be licensing hassles that would take years to deal with. "A better TV" would zip through, I bet.
mechrw@tnessd.sbc.com (Robert Wallace (214+464-6552)) (06/14/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [ much interesting stuff deleted ] > >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" You heard it first here! Well, Dave, how long until Commodore releases the beta version of its A9990 D.B.I.? Will it follow the rules, or will it take over the brain and go straight to the wetware? Robert Wallace
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/15/91)
In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >At least until we get to the direct brain interface. At which stage you're in REAL TROUBLE if you need to replace your "monitor".
plenler@antje.UUCP (Peter Lenler-Eriksen) (06/16/91)
>In article <1343@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <caw.1675@miroc.Chi.IL.US> caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: >>>In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> >>>>You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >>>>is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, >>>>In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look like a toy. >> >>They aren't going to look like toys, and the reason for this is that computers >>are catching up to humans. They have been for awhile, and they have a ways to >>go, but they're getting close to being able to serve most people as well as >>they need to be served. Human expectations about computers have been changing >>over the years, but humans themselves haven't been. > >Well, but there are still goals. Only think about speech control/recognition. >I think this will be one of the last steps in principal computer develop- >ment. On the other hand I don't give much future to that Pad technology >with handwriting recognition. I fear a normal keyboard serves you better >and more comfortably, but this is a personal guess. But to implement things There certainly are still goals! We are only at the beginning. But I agree, that we are at a stage, where the evolution has reached a plateau. On the plateau a major goal will be to refine the interfacing methods. The keyboard as we know it to day, is actually designed, as it is, to slow down the typist! It is a sad example how an inferior design, by unscrupulous marketing, can beat a superior design!! On a "Malling Hansen typewriter" from before 1900 you can write a letter 2 to 3 times faster than on a modern typewriter! Handwriting recognition and with that speech control/recognition will not be of any common interest before the next generation of computers, being more general tools of communication-information-organizing-accompaning serving many more purposes than the computers to day. The other interfacing methods (mouse, joystick) can easily be improved! In collaboration with engineers from Cambridge Engineering Center we have developed a new interface replacing both mouse and joystick, the SIC-interface, designed for users with muscular atrophy. This interface proved to be superior in use for normal people also and it will be a general replacement for the mouse, I hope. ( In fact I have offered the project to Commodore, but in spite of Commodore Denmarks enthusiasm (JN) we never got any answer, not even a "No, thank you!" via mail! A pitty because others in the project are very eager to let it be finished for the Mac or (Horrors!) for the IBM-compatible first.) >like speech recognition you will sure have to add some steps in processing >power. And I fear you need big steps. The computers developped through >this will sure let our today's ones look like toys. But I believe it will >be more than 2 years, 5 at least. (Yes, I saw that IBM prototype in an AT >on a fair, but it had a very limited vocabulary, still needed heavy training >for the speaker, and I think the effort will increase exponentially when >they're going to expand these mentioned limits.) > >> And at this point, just >>about anyone can sit down and use a computer without knowing much about it. I >>don't think we have much farther to go, any other major improvments are just >>gravy. > >Hmm, see above. > >>At least until we get to the direct brain interface. > >Yes, that would be the next step. And the last will be that computers >take over and integrate us into their brain. But I think I won't >experience that... > If you by "direct brain interface" mean bypassing the normal input/output filters in the brain it will be somewhat of a task! Neither I expect to experience that. The brain is very different from the computer in its way of working - very different indeed! Best regards ! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Peter Lenler-Eriksen ..cbmehq!cbmdeo!lenler!plenler | o O o | Kildevej 2 | | I | | DK-7470 Karup J | \!/ | Tel: +45 97 10 27 66 " for IDUN-Soft - the individual solution is standard - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------