[Anthem]

At what point does Moore's law stop being useful for the average consumer?

I got to borrow my buddy's MacBook for the weekend, and it's wonderful. I had it handle some video encoding that was causing my dual-G4 PowerMac to choke. But the honest truth is that for the most part, I'm not doing video editing. I'm surfing the web, writing papers, and answering my email.

The thing is, I don't want an old computer. I like the slimness of newer laptops, I like the widescreen, I like built-in bluetooth and WiFi. I like fast hard drives and lots of RAM. I just don't need the ever-faster clock speeds, and the high-heat / low-battery problems they cause.

What I'd dearly love, from Intel or AMD or whoever, is a laptop chip that lasts forever and doesn't burn my lap. You're saying "well that's a ULV chip and they're pricey." You're right, of course. But what if I wanted to trade off price for performance? I have way more performance than I need; I'd happily buy a chip that was 25% slower if I could get it for significantly cheaper.

Put another way: instead of upgrading the processors from 1.8 GHz to 2.0 GHz, what about dropping the price? Or offering it as the standard, but allowing a BTO option to choose a weaker (and cheaper!) (and cooler!) processor?

Would Apple ever offer a downgrade as a BTO option? And if they did, would you buy it?

[PB PM]

I don't think Apple ever has or will offter BTO downgrades.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by PB PM I don't think Apple ever has or will offter BTO downgrades.

Don't see why they shouldn't. Lots of companies do, and it seems to work well for them.

But if they did, would you do it?

Personally, I'd snap up a Mac Mini with a Pentium M for $399. And Apple's margins would be the same.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Anthem At what point does Moore's law stop being useful for the average consumer?

Not any time soon. So long as we have ideas for creating, editing, managing, and interacting with content, we'll have a use for more computational power. If not for common office applications, the need for speed will continue to grow in the role of multimedia, gaming, and simulation.

Originally Posted by Anthem Would Apple ever offer a downgrade as a BTO option? And if they did, would you buy it?

Very unlikely and even more unlikely, respectively.

The prospect of a "downgrade" is probably appealing to only a small segment of the market. Apple already has such a small slice of the overall market that trying to target this audience would needlessly consume its resources from other more important (read: profitable) areas.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Brad the need for speed will continue to grow in the role of multimedia, gaming, and simulation.

Except I won't be using my laptop for gaming or simulation, and it's plenty strong to handle multimedia for the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by Brad The prospect of a "downgrade" is probably appealing to only a small segment of the market.

True. But a lot of people might be interested in upgrading their battery life and allowing their laptop to run cooler.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by Anthem True. But a lot of people might be interested in upgrading their battery life and allowing their laptop to run cooler.

But not at the expense of their systems performance. I'd rather buy an extra battery for £80 or whatever than remove functionality that I might need on the off chance. I can plan around when I will be travelling and need to run the notebook on battery.

[awilso]

I'm With you on this big time. I still have an old Compaq computer which I use for word processing. I keep all my home correspondance on it. I never have to worry about viruses as it doesn't go on the net. Also my old Titanium powerbook is just as fast as my new powerbook for everything I normally use it for. The only thing which drives upgrades for me is digital media.


In fact now that I have a 2g Powermac I can't forseee a time when I will need to upgrade my hardware anymore. I have recently had to get a wintel box for Excel and client compatibility - but then they paid for that.


It also extends to cars - I was going down the highway the other day and a load of brand new Rovers were on the back of a truck, the last time I saw this model was in 1982. I guess they were out of the stock yard and heading for India or something. But it did occur to me that they would probably only be worth a few hundred pounds in todays money and are perfectly functional. Why can't I get one of these instead of having to buy expensive new cars.

Oh and mt Dad would be in the same camp - he still wants wordperfect 5.1 back as the standard word processing package. T~he files were smaller, the system resources needed to run it were less, and with all the keystroke action it was quicker to deliver.

Sometimes progress is not all it is cracked up to be - just talk to all the Mac addicts still using 9.1.

I always find that if you do an inventory of what your requirements are (truly are) and then match them against new technology, you are buying a lot of redundant functionality that you probably won't use. (Mobile phones for example).

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by awilso I always find that if you do an inventory of what your requirements are (truly are) and then match them against new technology, you are buying a lot of redundant functionality that you probably won't use. (Mobile phones for example).

I totally agree with phones. I think David Heinemeier Hansson said it best:

See, my smart phone kicks only ever lasted three or four weeks. Just enough time to explore all the features, download all the interesting applications, and get all the hacks running. Then I'd enjoy a brief period of marveling over the possibilities of playing Game Boy Color games, surfing the web, chatting on AIM, reading ebooks converted from PDF, watching Simpsons downsampled to MPEG-4, and all the other crap I made it do. Then, after all was explored, I would just make phone calls. And receive phone calls. And write text messages. And check my voice mail. You know, stuff the phone has been capable of doing before it had a multitasking operating system and more power than my first three PCs.

Then again, you live in Devon like me so I have to agree

[awilso]

Originally Posted by spikeh I totally agree with phones. I think David Heinemeier Hansson said it best: Then again, you live in Devon like me so I have to agree

Ah, civilised!

[RacerX]

Actually the whole idea of buying newer stuff sounds like a money pit to me. Two systems that I use a lot (mainly for school) are my PowerBook 3400c and PowerBook Duo 2300c. Why am I using these old systems? Software and hardware price. Both systems cost me under $100 (I got the 2300c for about $75 and the 3400c was free but I replaced the keyboard for about $25). And what software I didn't already own I've been able to get at very low prices on ebay. It would be very hard (and very expensive) to try to match the functionality of these two systems with recent hardware and software.

Quick run down of these two systems...

PowerBook 3400c
PowerPC 603e at 200 MHz, 80 MB of RAM, 9.5 GB hard drive, weighs 7.8 lb.
Mac OS 8.6
Applications:

3DXplorMath
Adobe Acrobat 5.0
Adobe Distiller 5.0
Adobe Dimensions 1.0
Adobe GoLive 5.0
Adobe Illustrator 8.0
Adobe ImageReady 2.0
Adobe LiveMotion 1.0
Adobe PageMaker 6.5
Adobe PageMill 3.0
Adobe Photoshop 5.5
Adobe Premiere 5.1
Adobe Type Manager Deluxe 4.6
AppleWorks 6.2.8
Apple iTunes 1.0
BBEdit Lite 6.0
ClarisDraw 1.0
Corel PHOTO-PAINT 8 LE
Corel WordPerfect 3.5e
CorelDraw 8 LE
Fetch 3.0.3
FileMaker Pro 5.0
Fractal Design Painter 5.0.3
KaleidoTile
Macromedia Flash 5.0
Mathcad PLUS 6
Mathematica 2.2.2
MathReader 4.2
MetaCreations Bryce 3D
Microsoft Excel 98
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.1.7
Microsoft Outlook Express 5.0.6
Microsoft PowerPoint 98
Microsoft Word 98
Microsoft Word 5.1a
Mozilla 1.3.1
Netscape 7.0.2
Netscape Communicator 4.8
Nisus Compact 3.4
Nisus Writer 4.1.6
Opera 6.0.3
Softpress Freeway 2.0.3 LE
PiXELS 3D Studio 3.7
QuarkXPress 3.32
QuarkXPress 4.11
QuickTime Pro 5
QuickTime 6.0.3
ResEdit
SimpleText
Sound Studio 2.0.7
SoundEdit 16 2.0.7
SoundEffects 0.9.2
Strata VideoShop 4.0
StrataVision 3D 4.0
Theorist 2.0.1

PowerBook Duo 2300c
PowerPC 603e at 100 MHz, 56 MB of RAM, 1.1 GB hard drive, weighs 4.8 lb.
Mac OS 8.6
Applications:

3DXplorMath
Adobe Acrobat 4.0
Adobe Distiller 4.0
Adobe Illustrator 6.0
Adobe ImageReady 1.0
Adobe Photoshop 4.0
Aldus PageMaker 5.0a
AppleWorks 6.2.8
BBEdit Lite 6.0
Claris Organizer 2.0
Fetch 3.0.3
KaleidoTile
Mathcad PLUS 6
Mathematica 2.2.2
MathReader 4.2
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.1.7
Microsoft Word 5.1a
Nisus Compact 3.4
Nisus Write 4.1.6
QuickTime 6.0.3
ResEdit
SimpleText
Theorist 2.0.1

My PowerBook Wallstreet is still one of my main systems and is only now being replaced for some tasks by my Beige G3. The Wallstreet (running 10.2.8) has a G4/500 in it, has 512 MB of memory, a 40 GB hard drive and 20 GB hard drive, and a CDRW drive. The Beige G3 (running 10.3.9) has a G4/533, 640 MB of memory, an 80 GB hard drive on an UltraATA/66 card, both CD and DVD drives (and room for a CDR), an ATI Radeon 7000 and a USB card... and that system was free. Applications for those systems...

3DXplorMath
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.10
Adobe GoLive 6.0.1
Adobe ImageReady 7.0.1
Adobe LiveMotion 2.0
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1
AppleWorks 6.2.9
Apple iTunes 6.0
BBEdit Lite 6.1
Caffeine Software TIFFany3 Professional 3.5
Caffeine Software Curator 3.7
Caffeine Software PixelNhance 1.5
Firefox 1.5
HyperEngine AV 1.6
MacJournal 2.6
MathReader 5.0
Mozilla 1.7
MPEG Streamclip 1.5
MTLibrarian
NeoOffice 1.2
Netscape 7.2
Nisus Thesaurus
OmniWeb 5.1
OmniDictionary 2.0
OmniOutliner 3.0
OmniGraffle 3.1
Opera 8.5
QuickTime 7.0
RBrowser 3.2
Safari
Sound Studio 2.7
Stone Design Create 12.5
Stone Design PStill 5.1
Stone Design PhotoToWeb 3.0
Stone Design TimeEqualsMoney 3.0
Stone Design SliceAndDice 3.0
Stone Design PackUpAndGo 3.0
Stone Design GIFfun 4.0
Stone Design Global Warmth 2.0
Stone Design FontSight 2.1
TextEdit
TextWrangler 2.1
ToyViewer 4.8
Watson 1.5

A lot of the Adobe apps were replaced with apps from Stone Design (free upgrades for life) when I moved to Mac OS X. Otherwise I rarely go chasing after the newest of anything.

The main philosophy I use when using old hardware and software is that the quality of most things hasn't really improved a ton in the last 10-15 years... what were those people using back then? Those same apps on that same hardware works just as good today.

Just looking at one application, Mathematica, the version I use (2.2.2) cost me $50 on ebay. The current version would cost me about $1,800. And Mathematica really hasn't changed all that much (not $1,750 worth ). Plus I was able to find a ton of used book on version 2 of Mathematica (which also saved me a lot of money).

And having a ton of older apps helps in learn those apps. 90% of the features in todays software were there years ago in older versions. If you need to know how to use piece of software, buy an older version and get to know it.

But racing out to buy new stuff just because it is new... that something I'll never do.

[awilso]

Very nice racer - VERY NICE, we could all learn a lot from this. And at the end of all the usage, what have you lost - an hour at most! - if that. Personally my CPU is constrained by my ability to type.

I think in IT terms its called a singularity.

[russgiro88]

Academia and the corporate world actually need more power on newer machines. It's true that most consumers don't, but since these companies (Intel, AMD, etc.) have invested all this money in designing a newer, more power chipset, they are going to sell it to anyone they possibly can.

And then once the newer hardware comes out, software companies stop catering to the old hardware. They can use the new hardware power to add more to their product which you probably don't need. Better graphics usually.

So you're stuck really, unless you want to continue running old unsupported software on old hardware.

Very few people actually need to computing power they buy. And if most software was written effeciently, then it could run on older machines with less power. But where is the profit in that? So really it's not Moore's law, it's capitalism.

[Banana]

Another possible problem is that it may not be up to consumers to decide how much computing power they will need. Suppose that 20% of internet decided that they should use Flash-only sites, and since that 20% represent the most visited sites, from yahoo, msn, cnn, and whatnots, if you're on a old browser, you would be SOL.

This is a hyperbole, but something like that could happen, though.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by russgiro88 Academia and the corporate world actually need more power on newer machines. It's true that most consumers don't, but since these companies (Intel, AMD, etc.) have invested all this money in designing a newer, more power chipset, they are going to sell it to anyone they possibly can. ... So really it's not Moore's law, it's capitalism.

I think maybe you missed my point. I'm saying there ought to be a decent market opportunity for people willing to believe that an extra 5% gain in speed isn't worth a 5% drop in battery life.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Banana Another possible problem is that it may not be up to consumers to decide how much computing power they will need. Suppose that 20% of internet decided that they should use Flash-only sites, and since that 20% represent the most visited sites, from yahoo, msn, cnn, and whatnots, if you're on a old browser, you would be SOL. This is a hyperbole, but something like that could happen, though.

That is a valid reason. Its what drove my parents to finally move up to OSX from OS9... the interent and the inablity of OS9 based browers to handle going to the sites they enjoy.Mind you they still have the same 450Mhz G3 PowerMac, but they are running Tiger.

[awilso]

I was just thinking about my Psion 3mx, it's still the best PDA on the market interms of functionality. (That is the functionality I wanted from it) - excellent database, good language, efficient file size, good keyboard and good battery life. It got killed by Palm. However I have had a palm pilot for five years, and it is still less efficient than the Psion was. Admittedly the Psion isn't very productive at all these days, since it doesn't work with anything. However I still play with it and wonder how such a good design concept failed. If I could get the thing to work with modern compters, I would be straight back in there.

Technology is abit like cups and wheels, they get developed into different sizes and stuff, but at the end of the day, they are just developments on good base design. We should encourage companies to return to base design and save us all the hassle of trying to manage our way through heaps of redundant functionality.

[russgiro88]

Originally Posted by Anthem I think maybe you missed my point. I'm saying there ought to be a decent market opportunity for people willing to believe that an extra 5% gain in speed isn't worth a 5% drop in battery life.

I undertsand what you are saying. You're satisified with the current power and want them to refine the other features. You want a computer with everything you want that meets all your needs. In response, I have two words for you, planned obsolescence!!!

My point is that power is easy to measure, easy to advertise, continually changing and so then easy to convince consumers its a better computer. The other features you described are more complicated to market. They're extras, not features that make people buy a new machine. You can buy add-ons for wireless or bluetooth. You can buy external hard drives and DVD burners. The only thing that requires an upgrade is the processor. So that's what they market to.

They don't really care about making the small minority you described above happy. Because if they made you happy and you're convinced that speed is not a factor. Where's the incentive to upgrade?

I get the cell phone thing I don’t even text message, but I don’t think that computers will be overpowered any time soon. As personal computers become more powerful more uses are being invented to use all of the available processing power. Back in 92 when I got my first Mac, I had no idea what High Definition was and that I would want to watch it on my computer, now I watch HD video all the time and cant image not being able to, so no I don’t think that Moore's law will ever pass the need of the average consumer.

[Doxxic]

Apple can't. They can compete because of the added value from the software they make for their hardware. They need the margins and they need their software to run as smoothly as possible to get Apple's added value across.

Apple needs more marketshare, so Mac OS X has more momentum, before they can lower machine specs and prices even more than they have, otherwise they'd shoot themselves in the foot.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Apple needs more marketshare, so Mac OS X has more momentum, before they can lower machine specs and prices even more than they have, otherwise they'd shoot themselves in the foot.

Apple only gains marketshare if their stuff is competitively priced.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Anthem Apple only gains marketshare if their stuff is competitively priced.

Market share doesn't matter if Apple isn't earning a profit.

Apple could probably gain lots of market share if it sold all of its computers for a flat $100. That's not a workable business model, though.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Brad Market share doesn't matter if Apple isn't earning a profit. Apple could probably gain lots of market share if it sold all of its computers for a flat $100.

Hey, that's a good idea. Here's another good idea. Apple should sell their computers for $5000 apiece. Yeah, they won't sell as many, but think of the margins involved!

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by Anthem Hey, that's a good idea. Here's another good idea. Apple should sell their computers for $5000 apiece. Yeah, they won't sell as many, but think of the margins involved!

Ah, the strawman. A not-very rare specimin on message boards, but always a pleasure to see so passionately presented.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Engine Joe Ah, the strawman. A not-very rare specimin on message boards, but always a pleasure to see so passionately presented.

I'm not sure how it's any more of a straw man than Brad's.

[hotch]

apple has, in the past, offered downgrades on pro systems (start with less ram, no modem, weaker graphics card)

i think this stopped with the ROJ

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Anthem Apple only gains marketshare if their stuff is competitively priced.

You can price competitively if your quality lies in other things than tech specs.

What I tried to say is that Apple needs more market share *if* they want to viably sell machines with lower specs.

But they don't want to and they can't because of their low market share. For now, they have to compete on something else than tech specs.

Instead, their low market share forces them to compete on intrinsic, distinguishing quality which is in it's essence easy for them to own and reproduce since it's basically software and design, and can be defended as intellectual property.

Apple may still be fighting for their lives, at least the Mac division.
Usual companies, that would have kept thinking in terms of competing on specs/prices in their darkes hours, would have been dead like rats.
They *need* the originality, optimism and brilliance they have right now.

They're beautiful.

[beardedmacuser]

Originally Posted by russgiro88 I undertsand what you are saying. You're satisified with the current power and want them to refine the other features.

Sounds like the last year or so of the PowerBooks when the G4 was stuck at about 1.67 GHz and Apple had to bump and bundle everything else in order to make it look like they weren't totally stagnating!

[bantock101]

It is difficult to be sitting here with absolutely zero problems with my ibook 700 and to be reading all of the nightmares people are experiencing on the apple forum with their brand new macbooks. I didn't know I had it so good. I don't have to worry about lap burn for one. I found myself babying a macbook at the apple store trying to figure out if it could run at a cooler temperature, and then I found myself reading reviews of various lap coolers. These problems are really new for me. I thought that by using the bottom of the line ibook and now macbook, that I would be spared the over heating, over the top machines that were for heavy users, gamers, video editors, photoshoppers, etc. I agree with Anthem that if you are coming from a place of being a relatively moderate user, you really don't want to have to deal with any of the 'pro' problems. And now, at least until and unless something a little more 'low-tech' comes along, it is as if we are being forced into that space of having to drive a truck when all you want is comfy little wagon. I understand about the demands of using media and content, but it is not as important to me as my own personal comfort and safety. I don't want a machine that makes all kinds of noises because it is overly hot and I don't want a machine that gets overly hot. And I would pay more for less, if I could have it, a simpler machine with a little less under the hood.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by bantock101 It is difficult to be sitting here with absolutely zero problems with my ibook 700 and to be reading all of the nightmares people are experiencing on the apple forum with their brand new macbooks.

No one goes to the Apple Care Support Forum to rave about how wonderful their new computer is. That forum is a hospital, obviously you're going to read about illnesses.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. Try paragraphs.

[bantock101]

Rasmits, I apologize if you find my post unintelligible. I will try to make it simple for you.

I agree with Anthem. Less is more.