The Demise of Hackable Computers 147
chipwich writes: "Extremetech has an article describing the impending demise of hackable computer systems. What if disposable computers brought a brand-new system within your budget for yearly purchase... Would you be willing to pay a premium just so you could install Linux on last years' model?"
Re:I wouldn't worry about it too much (Score:1)
Re:Can some of you explain your moderation here? (Score:3)
*hehehe*
Good morning Slashdot. (Score:4)
The article has a positively Jon Katzian glibness and is basically nothing more than a troll, for driving up page hits and sparking debate among slashdotters. This is fine for Jon Katz articles themselves (and part of Slashdot's charm), but look again! Isn't this the same site that was recently reported on as ZDNet's lame attempt to muscle sites like Anandtech out of their own market? Isn't it the very same site that was firmly identified as fake corporate grassroots? Why, goodness me, it is! And isn't this a site that would benefit from a slashdotting (build 'traffic' for PR purposes) and to become a recognizable name among techie geeks? I say it's at least 50/50 this article is a plant.
Now, they can't very well plant references in sites like Anand, because those people are too aware of the situation. But it looks like even without producing any sort of serious content, they can throw together some glib rabblerousing, get someone to plant it in Slashdot (again, 50/50 it was a plant vs. a real user) and move towards achieving their aims by building, or more accurately manufacturing, 'street cred'.
It's only a suggestion, but Slashdot story editors may wish to keep an eye out for Slash being used in this manner, and be slower to accept 'stories' that come from 'ExtremeTech'. That's just a suggestion. Personally, I would rather read Jon Katz: at least he's one of our own.
Re:Versatility (Score:2)
The arguement about the motherboards is valid, I wish that Apple made thier boards conform to the ATX size. However, I don't wish for a PeeCee case when Apple's Outrigger. K2 and El-Capitan cases are SO much easier to work with than the vast majority of cases for PCs.
However all the Mac towers have Firewire and USB, and yes most ATX boards now have USB, most do not have Firewire, nor do they have gigabit Ethernet.
As for the AGP, I again agree and don't. Apple gives you the choice of GeForce2, GeForce3, ATi Radeon, or Rage 128 Pro. That's a broad choice now that the video card market is contracting.
Re:Disposal? (Score:5)
Donate them to schools. The Linux Terminal Server Project for schools [k12ltsp.org], as mentioned in a previous article's comments [slashdot.org], seems like it could benefit immensely from this.
What to do when the schools have all the computers they need (unlikely, but let's be optimistic for a second)? Donate them to schools/people in developing countries where people can't afford even the $400 PCs floating around today (this would be most people in the world). I can't think of a better way to sow the seeds for the development of a massive army of Linux hackers destined to propel Linux to total world domination than to grab this massive market that Microsoft doesn't care about and where the people have a much stronger work ethic (and would therefore be willing to hack) than most in the US.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:2)
Sort of. IBM could have easily closed the entire IBM PC architecture. That way you would have had to buy all of your components from IBM or from IBM approved sources. But instead they put all of their eggs in the easily cloneable BIOS, and left the rest of the architecture open.
The reason that Compaq cloned the BIOS is that IBM had already created a large market for IBM PCs. This wasn't due to the fact that IBM PCs were very good, but rather that it was inexpensive to purchase nifty IBM PC add-ons (from whatever manufacturer you wanted). They realized it would be better to break into IBM's established market than to try and create a market for their own incompatible machine.
When Compaq opened up the IBM compatible market they simply amplified the original openness of the platform.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:2)
You said that much better than I did, but that's pretty much what I meant. I certainly did not mean to infer that IBM "got it" back then when it came to open standards. They simply considered the PC a toy, and not worth the engineering effort to create from scratch.
And yes, they did all kinds of things to try and close the platform, but none of them worked, for the same reasons that Linux is still gaining ground despite everything Microsoft can do, and despite the fact that for some uses it really isn't a very good solution.
Customers like open standards, they are generally less expensive, and they allow freedom and flexibility. Basically customers will always choose the solution that is "good enough" at the lowest possible price. As Linux improves it is rapidly becoming "good enough" for a widening range of uses. Microsoft, as the market leader, can do what they want to try and stop this migration, but in the end the only feasible defense is to give their customers comparably priced and comparably open solutions. That is why .NET is based on open standards, Microsoft has to compete in this space with Free Software. Hopefully as Gnome, KDE, Mozilla, and OpenOffice improve these technologies will likewise force Microsoft's hand on the desktop.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:5)
The PC industry is all about commodity hardware. There have been very few cases where a closed hardware specification has done well economically. In fact, IBM's effort to open their hardware was what guaranteed that the Macintosh didn't become the dominant PC computer architecture. Early Macs were a lot nicer machines than their IBM compatible counterparts, but the IBM compatible machines were cheaper (due to commodity hardware) and so they won out in the end.
Since then IBM tried unsuccessfully to corner the PC market with their MCA bus, and Rambus is currently learning that consumers (and more importantly memory manufacturers) aren't interested in their proprietary memory.
Hardware manufacturers that make it hard for their customers to actually use their hardware are only shooting themselves in the foot. They gain absolutely nothing by creating hardware that can't be hacked, and they lose potential sales from people that want to tweak their hardware.
The only folks that are concerned about the open nature of hardware are the folks who make their money from so-called "intellectual property." The RIAA and the MPAA don't want you to mess with your hardware because it might make it easier for you to copy their songs and movies. Microsoft doesn't want you to open up your computer because it makes it harder for them to keep you from copying their OS. Also open hardware specifications make it possible for alternative OSes to write drivers for the hardware. Microsoft would rather have Windows only hardware.
The hardware folks, however, don't really care if you are stealing songs, movies, or software. In fact, they would love for you to steal your software (that would give you more money to spend on hardware). They have something tangible to sell, and they know that their margins are tight enough that they had better not tick of their customers. They know that if they are quick to jump on the "closed hardware" bandwagon they will find that their customers are simply buying from their competitors, and that they have limited their own marketability simply to help someone else's business.
Re:Beware of programmers with screw drivers. (Score:2)
Mostly, yes. Official Matrox drivers at that, and with complete source:
Somewhat of a change from the olden days when they refused to give out programming information at all. Like Diamond before them, they eventually relented. I wonder how much longer NVIDIA can hold out?
Re:disposable? (Score:2)
I could also imagine using a 486 as a terminal server, a print server, and possibly NIDS in a low-throughput network.
486's would also be useful as play systems. I'd love to have half a dozen to test different network setups. I could install Solaris x86 on all of them and learn about NIS. Alternatively, I could set up a bunch of Linux machines and cluster them into a Beowulf cluster. Just for kicks!
Re:don't count out this profession yet (Score:1)
Nah, that was Frank Zappa.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:2)
The hardware folks, however, don't really care if you are stealing songs, movies, or software. In fact, they would love for you to steal your software (that would give you more money to spend on hard
Not only that, but the more music/movies/software that someone illegally copies (I refuse to use the word steal or pirate to describe this), the more hard drive space one needs, or the more CD-R's/CD-RW's one needs.
I'll bet that all the CD burner manufacturing companies and hard drive companies had a massive collective orgasm when widespread music and movie swapping became possible due to increased consumer bandwidth.
Re:disposable? (Score:2)
I'm just curious, does anyone else here feel as guilty as I do when you have to throw out old hardware?
Re:Can some of you explain your moderation here? (Score:1)
Re:As long as there are *sealed* systems, (Score:2)
Re:Bah. (Score:2)
Can't resist one more mention of a Register story [theregister.co.uk] about a Swedish site that takes the term "hacking" quite literally. Check the "angle grinder" link to see how to overcome those sealed systems.
Re:Off Topic: Re:Bah. (Score:2)
With a big enough hammer you can break anything (Score:2)
Now today it isn't cheaper to build it yourself so that's a non-starter. There is still a reason to custom build, mostly upgrade kind high end stuff - ya know the kind of HW you simply can't get at Circuit City.
But I for one am perfectly willing to throw old HW out (recycle of course) instead of keeping it around hoping to save $19 some day by reusing it.
What I REALLY want is a half speed $99 disposable PC.
There's Another Reason For Non-Hackable Computers (Score:5)
And the last thing they want is for you to be able to look at the OS and reverse engineer their protection. And *insert favourite Free OS* will not run on these systems - it'll be windows only, well unless you want to forego graphics, sound and hard disk access.
Yeh, and I used to rewire instructions (Score:2)
Not too may computers since then you could do that to.
Shall I complain about the demise of computers you could REALLY hack?
Should farts older than me complain that the SS-90 was a piss-poor imitation of a computer where you could hack individual AND and OR gates?
Keerist, things change. Get on with what you CAN do. Hack what levels are important, which is not the guts of a box any more, it's how the boxes are connected, and the software that drives them. And 20 years from now it will be a higher aspect. That's the way things work.
--
Re:disposable? (Score:2)
>minutes it would have taken to filch out the
>floppy drives
Floppy drives haven't improved at all in five years' time, and it's annoying to have to buy
them.
>The chassis are obsolete
I've looked high and low for decent AT cases
and power supplies.
>the memory's probably 30 pin (remember that!)
old 4meg 30 pin ram chips are pretty expensive
nowadays, when you can find them. More than
just pc's used these chips.
Re:Non-hackable?! Phshaw! (Score:3)
Re:analogy all flawed, just like his argument (Score:2)
--
The Cube was an unhackable computer. (Score:2)
Intriguingly enough, considering the Mac market as a whole, the unhackability is most likely what made it fail. I didn't buy one for two reasons: It had only one processor, and - more importantly - there was no in-system hard drive expandability.
(I did get a G4 dual processor 450 tower, which I'm very happy with).
D
----
Re:Slashdot is bit misleading.. (Score:2)
For 99% of these machines, nobody is ever going to open them up and stick a card in there. Most of them won't even have their memory or disk upgraded. It's not even economic to pay the techs to do hardware work -- cheaper to toss it and buy a new one if something breaks. They are just big, gigantic, over-engineered wastes of space and power.
Gone are the days when a compact case meant cheap substandard components. Maybe businesses will figure out that huge-assed computer != good computer. Buying this stuff is irrational, and won't last for ever in the corporate purchasing mindset. The future is iPaq-like desktops that maybe have 1 mini-PCI slot at most. We just have to get over the idea that a PC looks like a PC first.
--
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:2)
I dont care what they try to do (Epoxy the Bios chip, Clip the pins off of the IDE header... ) we will be able to hack it. and happily hack it.
You cant stop the hackers, anyone in the business knows this. Ask Netpliance, they killed themselves by trying to stop hacking instead of embracing it...
I dont care who you are, you cant stop me from hacking the device. (VideoCipherII+ boxes of the 80's are a prime example.. Encased in Expoy and we still got in to mod them.)
Computers already ubiquitous (Score:2)
desktop computers and 30-50 embedded computers
in cars (about ten apiece), media appliance (phones, stereos),
and other places.
However, only 10% of these at most are networked
together- perhaps the desktops, the cable box,
and maybe an Onstar car computer.
I suggest the poster meant "networked" ubiquitous computing.
Re:Ergonomics and monitor emission standards (Score:1)
More realistically, something along the lines of enshrining the Secure Audio Path technology into law, and making it illegal to alter your PC such that it can store off content that's supposed to be one-time-use. Such a regulation would be just a small step from the DMCA. Sure, you could still mod your PC, but imagine getting taken to court and having to prove that your changes weren't the illegal kind of modifications. Technically you're innocent until proven guilty, but in reality most of us couldn't wage this court battle and would have to cave. The end result, just like the DMCA, would be that most people wouldn't dare make any changes to their PCs for fear of an expensive legal suit.
For the truly paranoid, I might point out that with Windows XP, Microsoft will know when you've changed your hardware, and thus might be one of those evil hardware hackers. This hasn't come to pass yet, and doesn't seem too likely yet, but who really knew about the effects of the DMCA before it happened?
Re:disposable? (Score:3)
And the other day, I ran across four 486-class machines stacked in front of the dumpster at the apartment I'm staying at temporarily.
486es don't have enough processor power to justify the electrical cost of powering them on anymore. I didn't even think it was worth the five minutes it would have taken to filch out the floppy drives just in case they worked. And a mere gig of disk also isn't worth the power it takes to spin it up-- and a gig was huge in these machines.
The chassis are obsolete, the memory's probably 30 pin (remember that!)
...and at present, I own no walls to hang 'em on. Sadly, these beasts were in the right place; at the dumpster.
On the other hand, had they been P2 class or Athlon machines of any flavor, I'd've snatched 'em up, four years old or no. Some machines, on the other hand, are just disposable...
-JDF
analogy all flawed, just like his argument (Score:5)
And we haven't even gotten under the hood yet. Lightened fly wheels, underdrive pulleys, new cams, new heads, new pistons, close the deck, add forced induction, drop in a programmable ECU to get whatever fuel map you want, add new fuel rails, a high flow fuel pump, a stroker kit, high flow cats.
Sure it may take a "fair amount" of knowledge to mod your car. But it also requires a "fair amount" of knowledge to mod your computer. After all, it's not like you can just buy SDRAM SIMMs and try to fit them in your EDO DIMM slots.
The people who built hotroads in the 60s have been replaced by people who don't whine when technology changes.
But he somehow pretends that you could mod computers a lot more in the past. What exactly can I do with my old P120 motherboard? Can I put in that new spiffy memory? No. Can I use the new Ultra ATA hard drives at the true limits? No. Can I put in an AGP 4x video card? No. Can I drop in a Thunderbird? No.
If you want bleeding edge performance (which is his main complaint) then you have to basically buy a new computer from the ground up anyway. I don't see how this is any different from the future world he posits.
Re:analogy all flawed, just like his argument (Score:2)
It will more likely be because some bean counter decides the the pieces aren't earning enough, so they'll only sell them in batches of 5,000. And his brothers at other companies say, yeah, that's a pretty good idea. So there's no supply of parts. Don't even need a law. Don't even need a "regulation" (the same as a law, except nobody's responsible for it, and it can be changed as desired, whenever desired). Just a bunch of "efficiency" experts.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:disposable? (Score:2)
--
Re:disposable? (Score:3)
Nail one to the wall so you can look at it and remember what your baby was like before he/she became a hell-bound, rebellious teenage terror.
--
Re:Think outside the box (Score:1)
--
Re:Versatility (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but see, I like to write in that weird dark-orange color. Unfortunately it's economically infeasible to produce dark-orange ballpoint pens -- so shall I shut up and write with black like everybody else? "You can have any color as long as
For the sealed boxes to be cheap they have to be mass-market. What happens to those of different needs, or even tastes?
Kaa
Non-hackable?! Phshaw! (Score:4)
It's even less of an issue with PCs. There are enough electrical/computer engineers in the world to tell us how to hack just about anything. People said that the Intel Celeron (R) wasn't SMP capable [bxboards.com], but look at all the people that were out there drilling pins out and rewiring their CPUs to take advantage of the PII core! Don't tell me that you won't be able to hack hardware; it just becomes more challenging and FUN!
Re:Think outside the box (Score:2)
Re:Article is about DIY (Score:1)
Such a bill, if written with that express purpose, would be stillborn. And even if it's couched in some other 'lets be friendly to the environment' thing, it's so plainly anticompetitive as to have the same result.
Also, I don't ever see the likes of Apple, Dell, HP, Compaq, et al, ever lobbying for such a bill. Mostly because of the anticompetitive desires that would be revealed, resulting in PR 'issues' (it's one thing to want to rule the world, it's another altogether to actually come out and say so), but also because such activity would threaten the bottom lines of their own suppliers (how much, I don't know. What is the percentage of harddrives sold individually compared to sales to OEMS, for example?). Such a thing would probably cause the costs of the components in these pre-built systems to go up beyond an amount that could be disguised in volume.
Re:Think outside the box (Score:1)
Re:Article is about DIY (Score:2)
I've yet to see company offer a great price for prebuilding a system to my specifications.
That's all well and good, but there's a reason why Dell/Compaq/IBM/Gateway charge more money than Schmoikel's Back-of-the-Truck Extravaganza (MUST MENTION PRICEWATCH) Inc. They actually have to support the machines that they sell. They have to hire people to take calls from users to help with the system, and that includes issues ranging from "Where's the any key?" to hard drive crashes. Contracting 24-hour call centers is expensive stuff. Additionally, they have to hire people to design the web site, sell the products, advertise, etc.
I like building systems: I've built a few myself, and I've had my share of pitfalls. However, there have been times when I figured that it might have been better to buy a stock machine from a national beige-box maker, beef up the RAM, and have a support network ready to take it back when I break it.
And on the subject of your paranoid rant about "The Man won't let us build PC's anymore", lighten up. That's like saying that it's impossible to buy a PC without Genuine Microsoft Windows (see http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/) today. Stop creating FUD. The government doesn't give two shits about small-time computer vendors. When Schmoikel's Back-of-the-Truck Extravaganza (MUST MENTION PRICEWATCH) Inc. starts to take market share away from Dell, then you can come back and rant some more.
Re:Slashdot is bit misleading.. (Score:1)
The only mod we ever do to any workstations around here is to add RAM, and that isn't common. They all come with enough drive space (2GB+), good enough video and standard NICs, and since they're on a 3-4 year cycle (OK, maybe more four nowadays) they'll get tossed well before they lose all utility. And that's the other thing : we pass on a lot of "obsolete" machines to non-profits, schools and other organizations. They have even less reason or resources for opening the case than we do.
American-centric (Score:2)
There is a HUGE market for cheap, modifiable autos in CALA (Central America/Latin America) Asia and EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Afica) -- less so in Western Europe. The VM Beetlw is a HUGE seller in Mexico and other countries.
Likewise, these "old" computers can find welcome homes in schools, non-1st world countries and several other places.
Besides, wasn't the industry whining not too long ago about a slump in PC sales. Not because there wasn't anything new, but that there wasn't any reason to BUY anything new.
Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, Paint Shop, Corel Draw, etc. don't tax my 833 MHz PC so why do I need a 1.7 GHz one?
Non-professional audio and video editing need more RAM and HD space more than fasster CPUs.
It was at least 5 years after the releases of the Commodore 64/Atari 800 and later the Amiga and Atari ST that the systems were pushed to the limits by the software.
Hell, the "demo" that came with my NVidia TNT2 card has graphics that blow away any of the games today. Yet it is considered "obsolete" by the GForce 2 series and GForce 3. Snickered at by serious game players.
That "old/obsolete" hardware has more life in it regardless. Bring on the $500 whiz-bang systems. My local school would love to have my "old" dual-P3 800 MHz PC -- they're running P75s now!
Finally -- he was talking about a 1988 (13-year old) PC. 13-years in computers is like 50-years in cars.
--
Charles E. Hill
Re:Appliances (Score:1)
Don't say people don't understand computers. Look at playstations! and you know what is expected hehe.
Re:The author almost got it, but not quite (Score:1)
I'll simply get parts from Europe, Japan, etc. and build my machine that way. Sure, many of the parts will have DMCA et al ability, but that won't be activated for non-US parts as they won't apply. And you can't possibly tell me that DMCA type laws will be in force everywhere as even copyright isn't universal.
So the little computer store down the street dies. I'll miss them but mail order works and maybe I'll pay a bit more for international shipping. But the true hardcore upgraders want parts before they hit the US anyway. It just will raise the rest of us up to the point where if we know it's available in then we order from there.
I doubt customs will open up the box, wire it in and activate the DMCA, etc protections on every part crossing the border.
I'm afraid that no amount of scare mongering is going to stop people from having hackable computers. The market is too strong. And even if Joe Bluecoller won't be able to build his own machine, really, they don't now anyway.
Re:We already have "un-hackable" computers (Score:1)
I've got this ooolllddd 386 laptop, see? 2MB(?) RAM, 40MB HD, crappy screen. By somebody called leading edge (Greg says that's an old xerox alias).
Opened it up wondering if I could find anywhere to add or swap ram, maybe mess with the drives. Didn't do much more than accidentally detach the keyboard bus.
Boy, was THAT a pain to get back on. Anyway, now I've got an old laptop that I can tell my friends is literally kept functioning with duct tape and popsicle sticks.
The author almost got it, but not quite (Score:5)
As noted on
If projects such as CPRM move ahead, it will create a new, protected technology for PCs. All of the mainstream market companies will band together to offer only new machines with CPRM, locking out all the non-licensed competition. When federal/euro laws come into effect outlawing the sale or possession of non-compliant disk drives, the market for cheap far-east drives will disappear over night. The laws will be based on protection of intellectual property, and the battle will become much tougher to fight once those laws are passed. This is why so many intelligent people are fighting the creeping crud of bad IP laws, they can see the economic damage if more laws like the DMCA/UCITA are passed.
Further down the road, more laws protecting IP will eliminate competition in the video card market, sound cards, or any IP storage, transmission or playback mechanisms. When that happens, only large computer manufacturers will have systems on the market, and even though they will only cost about US$500-US$1000, they will become sealed units. If you want a system with more storage, buy a bigger computer. Faster video for games, get the next expensive system. Upgrading will no longer be an option, and all those internal upgrade slots/cables/connectors/sockets will disappear.
Getting rid of unused DIMM sockets, IDE sockets, plugs, cables, AGP adapters, PCI buses will make a computer system much cheaper than today. Systems will become sealed, and changing components will be left to only the most technically gifted. Those cheap systems will use technologies like
This also has a knock-on effect for Free Operating Systems, if the law extends to cover drivers for IP protected components. No longer will linux be allowed to have a free version of a driver for CPRM drives, or a DeCSS decoder for DVD players, or De4HGFu for the latest 4D-Hyper-GeoForce-Ultra video chipset. Possessing, creating, or distributing un-licensed drivers will be completely outlawed, possibly with criminal charges as opposed to the current civil laws. Universities will be required to monitor students work, and forbid any student working on any project that might infringe on IP protected software. When the boxes close up, free software will be marginalised to very small groups dedicated to keeping the counter-culture spirit alive.
the AC
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:2)
Re:Versatility (Score:2)
Look, ma, Extremetech! That corporate-owned site that's trying to astroturf over the overclocking/geek/performance community!
And surprise, surprise, the guys who take in advertising dollars in their print publications form the likes of D3LL, Compaq, Gateway, and the other "prefab boxes with proprietary motherboard form factors" are saying that the screwdriver shop is dead.
I'll grant the proprietary shops one thing - proprietary mobo designs allow for great control of airflow and quiet cases in comparison to the DIY market.
But that's all. A fellow tech here saw a D3LL P4 box for $800 and thought it was a bargain. Yeah, right, a 1.3G P4, PC600 - yes, SIX-hundred - RDRAM (shit, I didn't know they even made that stuff anymore). I calmly pointed out that any Athlon 1G could whup its ass six ways to Sunday on any benchmark he cared to point out, took him to a few sites that proved it, and the rest was history.
Michael Dell, if you're listening, you make a good proprietary system for an office setting, but you lost ten desktops that day. You'll lose more tomorrow.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:1)
Computers may get harder to hack, but I think that's something to look forward to
Re:Title is misleading. (Score:1)
Deeper Touches Than Just Hardware (Score:3)
This is not a big surprise, really. Palmtops, laptops, eMachineish types of computers are coming out all over. Cheap, working, closed-case machines for the masses. And the trend will continue, I think....but I think there are other issues at work here.
First, raise your hand if you like to upgrade your machines. Lots? Good. Next, raise your hand if you enjoy upgrading your mother's aunt's sister's machine. No? "But it's soooo slow!" Imagine. She's had it since 1996 and thinks it's slow. I'm flabbergasted.
The point is this: These compact, $300ish, throwaway machines are practical for the masses of lusers in the world looking for a quick, working desktop/Internet PC. They don't care about upgrades, and if it's only $300, so what? Trash it, get another. And there are a lot of us geeks out there who would rather NOT worry about having to try to upgrade it.
Now, I don't know about you, but there's nothing more satisfying than having a good night of tinkering with my hardware. (computer, you sick mind) I'll gladly pay the little extra to get cards that aren't integrated, to get 45 case fans all at the same time, to see the lights dim when my new 540,000RPM hard drive spins up. It's a disease, and I'm infected. And you know what? The machines run great. They just do. Maybe it's the love, maybe it's the time, maybe it's because I know every inch of it. I need my hardware fix. Or repair. Or upgrade. And as long as there's a demand for such systems that allow this, they'll be there.
I think we'll see these disposables before long. But there will be a chasm: disposables for lusers, tweakables for the elite.
Re:Versatility (Score:1)
Some scientfic applications require High Data Rate digital capture cards. You'll never see a chip that allows you to hook the number of inputs into it that some scientists want.
When it comes to capturing this type of data, some scientists are anal, and always wanting more data points at higher resolution. You won't see this type of data being captured on anything put direct to the computers memory/hard drive. You won't see it through gigabit ethernet, firewire or USB. The big word in this sort of application is 'Realtime', I think its mostly a fad that isn't needed in most applications, but everyone wants it, and this requires as high bandwidth as possible.
Other type of equipment in some labs use a custom control interface, often made inhouse. This type of control might move towards USB and Ethernet, but I honestly doubt that.
GPIB isn't what I call a custom interface, but I doubt you'll ever see it based in an integrated box. JTAG interfaces for embedded development probably won't make it into an integrated box. But these interfaces do have ethernet adaptors now. But even with these the direct connect to the computer adapters are still more popular.
There will always be small, important applications that have markets too small to be included in the integrated boxes, but still need to have a computer interface.
Re:Think outside the box (Score:1)
Re:disposable? (Score:1)
Let's revisit this when... (Score:5)
Until then the mainstream will be (easily) modifiable computers. People still need customized solutions for at least a few more years and it's still cheaper to do so rather than have one prepackaged system. Remember that $500 isn't chump change. PC gaming in particular, which is a huge factor in popular computing, doesn't invite closed systems since we haven't plateaued. You can't equate PC and consoles for at least the next couple generations.
It's going to happen, yes, but not for several years at the minimum.
Yet another example... (Score:1)
I've been getting into DIY electronics for school projects lately, and have run into a similar problem to what he's describing. Years ago, computer enthusiasts actually designed and built their own custom computers, with homemade printed circuit boards and off-the-shelf components. Yet today, it would be nearly impossible for a simple hobbiest to build a modern computer equivalent from the bare essentials. Pitch sizes on semiconductor leads have dropped to 0.025 inches, and modern computer motherboards require at least four layers due to the integration of components. BGA chips, like the chipset on a motherboard, require expensive reflow soldering ovens just to mount (though a few expensive clamp-down sockets for these can be had).
This isn't necessarily a bad thing--computers are faster, cheaper, and smaller today than ever before. Yet the barrier of entry to the market has risen significantly. Chip fabs, for example, are so expensive to build that only established players in the market can even afford to build them, effectively making market penetration all but impossible for any new company wanting to fab ICs.
This isn't a new thing--companies constantly try to raise the barrier of entry to various markets to eliminate competition. You could fix a Model T Ford with only a few simple tools, or it couldn't be fixed. Today, you need an incredible array of tools to service a car beyond simple oil changes and such, effectively cutting the little guys out of the market in favor of large automotive dealer shops.
So it's bound to happen, and hard core people will find ways around it, while everyone else will find some new toy to play with.
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:1)
Re:Electronic emissions standards (Score:2)
And just why would the auto industry want to prevent people from modifying their cars? Most of those modifications require part, usually more expensive than the original parts, and somebody has to make them.
Throughout the 60s and the early 70s, the American auto industry was heavily involved in various types of racing, and the high performance parts they developed were often available to the public for use in modifying their own cars. Aftermarket modifications resulted in the auto industry being able to sell more stuff and make more money.
And if you think they (the auto industry) were thrilled about putting all the emissions control devices on their cars, think again. Those things severely reduced power output, and cars had to be made smaller to maintain reasonable performance. And smaller cars just happen to have a smaller profit margin than larger cars.
So sure, I can just see some auto company's board of directors sitting around, gleefully plotting on how to screw the consumers and their own profits at the same time...
And just to try to keep this on topic, how does requiring the use of an LCD instead of a CRT considerably cut down on the ability to customize a computer? Sure, it might limit your choice of graphic card somewhat, but don't most of the good graphic cards these days support LCDs? Besides, if they were going to require LCDs instead of CTRs, then there'd be a lot of TVs that'd need replacing too.
Re:Let's revisit this when... (Score:1)
I've been using FVWM [fvwm.org] in X (those who don't know what I'm talking about probably don't need to know what I'm talking about) for as long as I've been using UNIX systems, and that would be six years now. I've never stopped tweaking my config and every now and then I have to hack something, too.
The environment is very good now, but it's not perfect. And nobody else would be able to use it efficiently, because it grew with me.
Daisy-loving Ai
Re:The Cube was an unhackable computer. (Score:2)
--
Re:There's Another Reason For Non-Hackable Compute (Score:1)
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:1)
PCs were inherently hackable devices (Score:2)
Ultimately, of course, whatever we wanted on the PCs make its way to relatively non-hackable end-use, single-purpose "appliances", such as Tivo (yes, I know they are hackable), MP3 players, etc. I believe that more and more of these kinds of things will arrive, but without the PCs leading the way and providing functional experimentation, marketing experimentation, etc., it would take a lot longer to bring such appliances to market. Could you imagine how long it would have taken to create things like Tivo and portable MP3 players that we have now if we didn't have the PC platform to first show that there was a market, second show what the user-interface might look like, and all of that? The PCs are the ultimate mass test-marketing and experimentation tool, somewhat akin to breadboards in electronics. The PCs will always be hackable and will always be useful because of its value as I have described above.
Re:Edible computers (Score:2)
Re:Edible computers (Score:2)
I think we should focus on edible computers instead of disposable.
As technology matures in this area, we could have low-fat and low-carb varieties.
--
Null content article. (Score:1)
No. I will always have a choice.
Now, let me ask you: do you want to take that 386/33 and mod it up?
If that's what I have to do, then I will.
Ultimately, we all love to customize in some way. What better way than to build a PC that's a reflection of your own ultimate computer?
Most things I own are that way. My computer. My car. My home. I hack them from the original specs to make them fit the job I want.
I don't have one car to go grocery shopping, one car to go to work, and one car for a drive in the country. Similarly, I don't have one computer to surf p0rn, one computer to game and one computer for werd processing.
I've only purchased 2 computers in my life that were pre-built, and nethier of them stayed true to thier factory specs much longer than it took me to get them out of the box and take their lid off. Pre-built and sealed computers are great for the technically challenged, who probabally would never open the hood to look inside anyway. For me, not a chance.
I don't think the Dell's, IBM's or Compaq's are that dim, they will never go to a sealed factory unit only line of product. If they do, where will that leave companies like ASUS and GigaByte?
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:1)
It's getting to the point where the answer is no longer 'make the computer more powerful'. Jet Liners all of a sudden stopped getting faster in the late 1950s/early 1960s (when was the Boeing 707 introduced? Is a 757 or 777 any faster?). We may see something similar but for different reasons; the market may no longer push for faster machines.
By integrating more functions onto fewer chips, PCs get less expensive. Things that used to cost $150 and be on their own board are now a fraction of the functionality of a chip on the motherboard. Useful computers are getting cheaper. The market is saturating; retail computer sales will become more like TVs, selling into a replacement market.
Spending $120 for the operating system on a $2,000 computer seems OK. Spending $120 for the operating system for a $400 computer is ridiculous -- when there's a compelling alternative. This is what caused Microsoft so much agita with Netscape, and now with Linux and other Free Software.
If the box does the office tasks (which now include websurfing), plays CDs, DVDs, and 3D Games, burns CD-Rs or -RWs, leaves some storage for the user's pictures, videos, and music, balances the checkbook and does the taxes, and costs $600, and the Microsoft-approved version costs $1100 (remember DOS, Windows and Office), guess who wins public mindshare?
Re:Versatility (Score:2)
The beauty of PCs is how customizable they are, it would be a great loss to loose that.
This is why PowerPC machines are much more rare than Intel counterparts. For many purposes, a PowerPC system is much faster than a similarly clocked PII/III. But the price of a PowerPC is artificially high because you can only buy a couple of motherboard models at a time, and there is no flexability as to which case you can get, and little flexability what options you can get. While they have PCI and AGP slots, you have to buy whatever AGP adapter Apple want to put in there first. And IBM has made PowerPC workstations, but those are marketed at the higher end, and at installations where variation is not necessary. Because of this limited competition and flexability, prices are artificially high and user acceptance is much lower
We already have "un-hackable" computers (Score:4)
Re:This happened decades ago. (Score:2)
Re:Keep on hackin' (Score:3)
E.g. opening a case which is designed to destroy the computer when opened, but done it such a way that the computer isn't destroyed. Now it would be easier for people to add "non-secure" (i.e. doesn't restrict fair use) hardware and possibly violate the DMCA.
That is more likely, and even scarier. The MPAA owns way more of Congressional mindshare that the hardware companies. And the hardware companies have been on the side of good quite a bit (often not for noble reasons, but for economics. In a way, that's better because they aren't likely to change their mind unless the economics of the situation changes a lot).
Congress has members who actually believe that if the MPAA makes less money (but still a huge amount) due to priacy, that they'll just stop making movies (and make zero money), and that they won't be able to go to the theater on Saturday night.
Hopefully by the time things get too bad, Linux will be mainstream enough that crushing us will be politically incorrect.
PROGRAMMABLE Personal Computer... (Score:2)
Wasn't Invented here.... (Score:2)
Part of what makes the idea of a sealed box repulsive to me is I think it represents a common attitude from big software and hardware makers - that nothing of real value is ever invented outside of the California tech sector.
Such an attitude is compleatly dismissive of the Open Source software movement.
By making closed architechure the norm for home users we can shut alternative Operating Systems out of the market. I'm sure Microsoft has no motivation to act here. *cough*
Just another jeremiad... (Score:2)
I don't think that necessarily bodes ill for DIY systems, but I do think they might eventually become more expensive as the minitower idea becomes obsolete (again?). Reason: there will still be significant demand, from both systems integrators (commodity shops like Dell and Gateway especially) and customers. If you don't believe me, try something like I did a couple of weeks ago:
Go down to your local CircuitBuyUSA and try and take a look at the back of the systems they have on sale. To most of you it will probably come as no surprise that these systems are all ATX-based; it came as something of a shock for me because all the PCs I've owned are recycled business machines with nonstandard mobo designs. They are as they are for good reason: it's probably vastly cheaper to base consumer hardware with no special requirements on parts that can be easily second-sourced if you run low. If HP runs out of Vectra motherboards that require risers for PCI slots, they have a problem because they themselves are the only source for their motherboards.
The flipside: if they run short of motherboards for Pavilion boxes, that's not as big a problem, as they need merely place a call to Asus or whoever and get, say, 50K AMD760 motherboards shipped over by next Wednesday; from there, all they have to do is quietly slip the new motherboards out in those pretty grey HP-labeled cases and no one is any the wiser.
I think DIY computers will continue to be available to anyone who wants one. The fear that the world is headed in the iMac direction as a general rule is slightly justified, but not really so much of an issue as things like CPRM and SDMI that could create lockin issues on the OS level while taking hardware questions completely out of the loop.
/Brian
A postscript on customizability: I decided once when walking through a local Best Buy to actually see what their "build-your-own-computer" station did. Suffice to say that it made a mockery of the whole concept of designing your own system -- it didn't so much place an order for you as give you a very small choice of "requirements" and tell you what they had in stock already that matched it.
Truth in advertising? Not here...
Re:Versatility (Score:2)
/Brian
Re:Think Green (Score:2)
For what it's worth, it seems as though the market has already rejected such devices -- they're rather difficult to buy (RadioShack aside) and the world in general does seem sold on Big Boxen. The iMac seems to have been the only system of that sort that was really accepted; the rest just don't seem to fly.
/Brian
Re:Article is about DIY (Score:3)
[Political Party X] will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years.
You failed to state a rationale for this. You seem to imply it's because corps. will lobby Congress so they can force you to buy whole systems, but the same end-results can be achieved by convincing MS to tighten the screws on its WPA (and Apple can solder its machines shut if it wants).
A better argument would be to point out that as processor speed goes up, so does RF interference. Once it gets to a certain level, the FCC will feel compelled to step in. Of course, that doesn't require Congress to act, either, so I'm still not sure why you said what you did.
All-in-Hackable (Score:3)
Beware of programmers with screw drivers. (Score:2)
Huw, wait, isn't this already the case now? do the latest (matrox.power) gfx card have linux drivers. how about the latest cable modems?
And the new nvidia nForce. Will it have full linux audio support or just support some legacy mode?
Linux on lthe last model computer, forget it, you do not wnat that. If you know what it is all about you build and overclock your own system, it will be faster and just as cheap and will have all linux supported items in it.
Great thing about it that you will be able to run linux on 1 year old PC's that are thrown away.
and... you do not need to hack a box to run linux on it. Just boot the cd....
Re:Versatility (Score:3)
I don't know why its scary - the point about this "sealed" box is that it is cheap. Think more along the lines that you have a several ball point pens (maybe each with a different colour inks) than a quill pen and lots of bottles of ink.
Title is misleading. (Score:2)
The problem is, that it takes a LOT more technical skill and "bravery" to modify these devices that it does to upgrade your video card. How many people own a Torx screwdriver set?
Dell/Gateway/etc would love to be able to sell you a brand new computer every 2 years. They can profit just as much off $1000 computer as they can off $2500 ones.
Electronic emissions standards (Score:2)
And what do we do when emissions are *discovered* to come from the computers themselves? You tell me...
Do I feel the clean air act was implemented to stop car mods or achieve clean air?
I feel that if the auto industry truly had the grip that it did on politics at the time, I don't think it should have *supported* the clean air act, yet oddly enough, most did.
It would almost seem as if it was an attempt to *prevent* people from doing their own customizing and design, and rather have them pay full price for big auto's machine instead.
So, regardless of what good intentions you may believe the clean air act had, the end of car modding (till recently when it has become affordable again) was what the big supporters had in mind.
They just successfully tricked the American people into thinking they were "helping the enviroment".
Want to know something even more hilarious? (Score:2)
However it does seem rather obvious that the Republicans would end up tagging along on the issue.
I'm a Libertarian cause I know where they stand, I simply added that thing in about all the political parties to make sure I didn't offend one party too much by saying it would be the cause of all hell and rather saying all parties are.
I don't *believe* that way, but the PC police don't want me ruining their little escapades.
Article is about DIY (Score:5)
He seems to think that we won't be doing it much longer since companies have been catering to our needs? I ask, in what fashion?
I still can't find an AMD Athlon T-bird 750mhz with a gig of RAM and all the fixings without building it myself for under 500. Pricewatch will be around for a long time hopefully, and as long as it is, I'll be ordering my stuff on there. Sepearately.
I've yet to see company offer a great price for prebuilding a system to my specifications.
I do have to say he hit the nail on the head with this one:
Two events conspired to effectively destroy the market for modifying cars. The first was the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, which started the ball rolling for mandatory air pollution controls on cars.
While the second one was about oil shortages, I'd have to say the first was the biggest problem. My dad and uncle *still* talk about how great life was way back when they could modify cars as they see fit.
So, here's my prediction: The Greens/Democrats (not chosen cause I disagree with them political, but rather because it is most likely based on philosophy that such a social policy would come from either of those two) will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years. The Republicans (not chosen because I disagree with them politically, but because they are in a "compassion" phase right now, which ultimately mean "comprimise" phase, where they vote however they deem necessary to get majority votes on *their* bills) will of course support the bill once the Democrats get enough convincing and possibly support from Apple (the biggest company to gain from the bill), Dell, HP, Compaq, and other big PC builders, which could easily meet the regulations, while us small-time PC builders cannot.
Don't think it'll happen, you just wait. Remember I made this post.
Re:disposable? (Score:2)
I think it's a 66 MHz... 30 pin memory (80M worth)... generic svga card... 500M HDD(?)... 2x CD ROM.
Perfectly acceptable computer for what I wanted and for essentially zero cost. Not that I'm going to run around collecting 486 machines... but they can serve a purpose.
-S
Versatility (Score:3)
With this idea of sealed boxes the scariest thing for me is that maybe they'll sell one box for video editing and one for gaming but not one that does both well. So instead of paying for one card I have to buy a whole system to get the same functionality. The beauty of PCs is how customizable they are, it would be a great loss to loose that.
disposable? (Score:3)
Re:There's Another Reason For Non-Hackable Compute (Score:2)
...which is fine, so long as those of us who want them can still get *real* computers.
My fear is that the huge media organizationas will be able to succesfully lobby the governments of the world to pass laws strictly regulating which computers are legal to own-- in the name of "protecting intellectual property" or some similar. (You can't own a real computer because you *might* use it to pirate music!)
It doesn't seem that unlikely a result to me at the moment. Indeed, in the absence of campaign finance reform much more radical than what is currently being proposed in the US, I suspect that an outcome like this is all but inevitable, at least in the US. (Right now, it is too easy for huge corporations with a vested interest in curtailing intellectual freedom to buy congressmen.)
-Rob
Keep on hackin' (Score:5)
Pffft. Experts my ass... (Score:4)
These are the same people who tricked me into thinking that by the year 2000 I'd be watching holographic porn while riding in my flying car.
Most of the time these people can barely grasp how things work now - let alone in the future.
Bah. (Score:2)
Will I be able to build a killer DIY system in 10 years? Maybe, maybe not. But If not, so what? The prefab stuff will be so cheap it won't matter. Sure I get a kick out of messing with my hardware. But I hope to develop new hobbies as I pass into my 30's and beyond. Like fixing up old cars. Or getting elected to Congress so I can screw around with hot interns.
Think Green (Score:2)
But the big question here is the obsolesence issue. We've got all these machines around that can only do what they are supposed to. Because of this, they're cheap as hell...maybe $400 for a complete machine. Nowadays, when a machine gets old, you wait a couple of years to replace it. I spend an average of $1000 per year on my machine (tax deductable, thank you very much freelance work). If I could buy a new whiz-bang PC every 5 months for the same price, I might do so. Now, if everybody does this, and many will, especially the folks who think that higher numbers improve their lives and that a P4 1.4 is "one louder" than an Athlon 1.33, we'll end up with a lot of waste. What might have been one tossed large metal box every two years, scroungable by wise hackers into a useful machine, is now two or three tossed large metal boxes per year with no scrapability factor. And that doesn't bode well for an industry that already impacts the environment more than its fair share (huge power supplies for underpowered machines, unreclaimable fibers in PC boards, increased environmental heat from speedy chips not designed to run HLT when they're not doing anything, and dirty, expensive, power sucking manufacturing firms).
The idea itself is not horrible...many people would benefit from a cheaper, "subscription" PC service. But use & lose hardware is not the most elegant solution. What if we made PCs like Swatches, with beautiful, expensive exterior cases that could be swapped with blocks of interior components? I don't mean components like a video card, expander card, &tc...i mean broad components, like a PC in a box, power supply in a box and a smaller box for storage. When the parts get old, take them to the store and have the boxes swapped out...but have the manufacturer reclaim the old parts. Sand down and remanufacture the processor. Melt down the steel and re-dye the pc board. Reuse wires and fans and pins.
If done right, the Swatch PC could be a very elegant solution, beautiful and slightly hackable with a high environmental conscience. But a disposable PC...disposable anything is bad!
Disposal? (Score:3)
What the hell are we going to do if we throw away a computer every year instead of every three years?
Just a question. Well... maybe two.
don't count out this profession yet (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry about it too much (Score:3)
The example from the story, modding cars, is not a good analogy. Federal standards caused cars to become more complex, and thus harder (impossible?) to modify. I can't think of any reason the same would be true of computers.
Besides, as long as there is a reasonable market, companies will still individual parts. Black boxes may become commonplace, but think about the server realm. It would be very expensive to replace a black-box server compared to the cost of swapping out bad components. So as long as the server market is alive (forever?), there will be a market.
I don't think customizable computers are dead.
Re:Think outside the box (Score:2)
In parts of Maine "least wise 'tan't" seems to mean "so far as I know, it is not" (least wise it isn't/ain't).
I think on /. that would be written "afaik ~".
-- MarkusQ
Re:Think outside the box (Score:2)
Correct. That was the last answer under East Coast Hackish. The remaining answer, West Coast Hackish for 1000, is:
"This FLA is considered the appropriate response to 'DEI'."
-- MarkusQ
Think outside the box (Score:5)
My first reaction was, "didn't this happen years ago?"
I mean, when was the last time you got out a soldering iron and had at your PC? That used to be the norm, back when messing with micros meant S-100 and IEEE stuff. But with multi-layer boards (gack, I can't remember the last time I saw a single or layer two-sided board made by someone I didn't know) it's a lot harder, and likewise with the decreasing size and increasing complexity of ICs. But the main reason I stopped is that I no longer needed to work at that level to get the job done. The optimal level for configuration moved up, and I followed it.
This (if it happens, about which I have some reservations) will just trigger another migration: rather than hacking inside the box we'll just be hanging odd homebrew things [parallaxinc.com] on various I/O ports and treating the PC as a blackbox.
(set-mode Old-fart nil)
-- MarkusQ
P.S. A real old fart would tell us hardware hacking died when they went to these here new-fangled "chip" things. You can't pry them things open, or least wise 'tan't worth it.
Disagree (Score:2)
By changing to a model where everything is integrated, the PC industry would lose this advantage. PC makers who move to a proprietary, closed model would lose out to PC makers confirming to modular standards.
Let's say intel started building integrated systems, and DELL, Compaq, and Gateway resold these systems by slapping stickers on them. Now these companies would be forced to have inventories of components $500 a piece, instead of $100-$200 a piece. Their margins would shrink, inventories increase, and they would not be able to react to changing market conditions and customer demand.
PC makers who stick with a modularized model, would be much more nimble, have less inventories, and would be able to add new features and technologies as soon as component manufacturers came up with new things. The part of the industry who depended on fully integrated systems, would always end up being 6 months behind the curve.
I think the author completely missed the advantages of JIT manufactoring. The auto industry used almost 100 years to move to such a model. Although the finished car is less accessible to hackers, the process of building a the car is somewhat similar to the way PC's are built. Car manufacturers rely on 100's of reduntant vendors.
PC form factors and buses may change, but I still think that the future is not proprietary integrated systems. The advantages of having competing vendors making the components are too big.
Appliances (Score:2)