@vux984,
|
A) Most people don't really want extremely flashy desktops that take a lot of GPU "oomph" to do. They want simple and functional and when and only when the graphical flair provides simple and/or functional should it be used. This idea of video card purchase just to make your desktop work is insanity. No. People think Aero when they think Vista, and they think Aqua when they think of OSX. People want this. |
I can't speak to the computing habits of people in your area, but as someone who build computers as a source of secondary income I can tell you that there is almost zero interest in this sort of thing in my area. I have a hard time thinking of this as anything other than MS propaganda. At this risk of offending you I have to be honest in saying that you are basically covering what I would consider Apple & MS OS talking points.
Bottom line is that computers, like most things in life, can benefit from the KISS philosophy.
| Quote: Oh and $180-$280 is a high end video card for 98% of people. Only well-off and extreme hardcore gamers people purchase one or more of the $500 cards, because people know that the price isn't worth it and it WILL come down. To most consumers a high end video card is the $300 range, mid range is more like $90-$200 and low end is basically as cheap as you can find to about $90 again. I build PCs for all sorts of people and these are the types of price ranges I see. Me too. And If you are spending under 90 you might as well just stick with integrated. And your ranges don't make sense ... $300 is high end, and mid range is $90-$200? Well what the heck is a $240 card? Seems we agree that high starts around 300... which means my cutoff around 280 for mid makes sense. As for low, you set it at 90, while I set it at 180. I concede my low was a bit high. I'll revise that down to $120. But anything less than that and you might as well stick with integrated, unless you are buying used/clearance and getting a great deal on an nvidia 6600GT or something. |
Perhaps my ranges were not have been explained clearly but they do make practical sense. To most people the high end range is $200-$350, this is because to most people the $600 card is a $300 card in 4-9 months. Smart PC shoppers do not spend $400-$600 on a video card. That sort of expenditure, and the philosphies that support it, are the reason people think you need a $3k computer to play Crysis....which I know for a fact is wrong. When building a PC high end or otherwise the first consideration should be bang for buck. How much performance are you truly getting from every dollar spent and could it be spent better else where? And the $400-$600 video cards fail this test horribly when stacked against the $200-$300 cards and say a processor and memory upgrade.
As for the low end and integrated, I definitely agree that a lot of people can benefit from utilizing integrated video if they are building from scratch & choose a good motherboard. But this isn't the low end of video card markets, this is more the mid-range motherboard market.
The low end for video cards consists of people purchasing cards specifically to meet certain connection requirements. For example I recently helped a business order and install 30 128MB video cards for machines whose current on-board video couldn't support the new 22" monitors that had been purchased for the machines (they wanted nice widescreens for multitasking). In these situations on-board solutions aren't worth it since it likely means a completely new PC as well. In that regard it is important to recognize that PCs are incrementally upgraded in a large percentage of situations which is what feeds the low-end market. If everybody bought computers along the model you were basing your points from then the DELLs, Gateway's, HP's, etc...would be extremely happy....but that isn't the case.
Looking at that example again, I wonder if you would suggest they upgrade to Vista since they are looking to utilize multitasking? Personally I think this is a horrible fit for a business, particularly one that already has XP licenses that they are satisfied with.
| Quote: B) How is the experience seriously weakened? Because to the end consumer who knows what looks good and what doesn't people see that if they play DX9 it runs smoother and looks practically identical. In DX10 it runs slower and ...looks practically identical. You can say it is a "seriously weakened experience" as many times as you like but until that matches up with the real world for the consumer they aren't going to care 2 craps about what you or MS say about DX10 and how amazing it is. GPU multitasking requires using more than one application. Playing a single game is not the issue. Its when you've got multiple video clips going in final cut with an itunes visualization playing in the background. (check out OSX sometime.) XP just can't do that without stuttering around like a clutz. You don't even need a high end card to do it.
|
Ok, there seems to be a miscommunication here because I have tried to get this point across and it seems like you are missing it. The basic idea is that people with multiple video clips going in final cut with itunes, etc, etc...aren't building their PCs the same way as a gamer. Gamers build their PCs for what they will do the most with them and that is of course gaming. So I have to ask what itunes and final cut have to do with gaming? I also wonder what kind of things iTunes is doing that would even remotely task modern cards...even with final cut going crazy in the background. If anything iTunes is an insignificant factor and Final Cut is the source of the real workload in that example.
| Quote: C1) Again, the desktop should not be a GPU taxing application. This idea that you have about needing DX10 for the desktop is completely out of sync with what normal people want. I gauruntee you that nobody is spending a few hundred on video card with DX10.x compliance just to get a few extra nifty effects for their desktop. People don't want to pay for this stuff. (edit: in bold) The future is now. The desktop *is* a modestly GPU taxing application. And its what people want. Half the consumer backlash against vista is all the vista capable PCs that can't do aero properly. And even if you don't think its a big deal today, its definately where we are headed. Sooner or later we have to make this transition. OSX has done it. Linux has done it. Its about time Windows caught up. As to being willing to pay? To an extent you are right, but the latest intel integrated graphics today are already on par with midrange cards from a few years ago in a lot of respects. That trend will continue. And remember its not that your desktop needs shader model 4, bump mapping, etc... it just has basic needs like transparency, blending, layering... The reason XP stutters is that it can't divy up a gpu's time the way it can divy up a cpu's time. gpu multitasking doesn't require a state of the art card. It just requires an os kernel and graphics system that CAN do it. Consider that OSX can do it with non-directX10 capable cards -- its not a feature of the card. Its a feature of the OS.
|
No, the future is tomorrow. What you are saying is the untranslated advertising propaganda...the translated version is "We want this technology developed so we can sell it to you tomorrow, but we want you to pay for it now.". The desktop *shouldn't* be a GPU taxing application...it ***can*** be done in a way that is as slick and streamlined as any desktop out there and without the resource requirements. But that doesn't sell hardware, and it doesn't help them reinforce the business model I translated above.
On the next point; You are absolutely correct that onboard video today is the mid-range card of a few years ago. But that is how the computer hardware market works, and it isn't really new or shocking. It will be true in another few years from now as well. This doesn't mean you should design applications that are taxing to those users now in hopes that they will upgrade...well not unless that is your business model. But my point is that good programmers write their code for today with scalability for tomorrow. You don't write your code for tomorrow and say "good enough" or "the hardware will get here eventually".
I do agree with you on the technical point that a great video card is not required, but I disagree with you if you are trying to say that the "shitty" aspects of vista are required for it to do that. I think you may be confusing the two issues actually. I take issue with the Vista desktop that requires a good video card and this so-called certification of "vista ready" hardware etc...that is bogus. And if Vista and DX10 are as worth it as you claim then those requirements and certifications shouldn't be needed. If all it did was provide benefit then there wouldn't be a problem. But your proposition really is one of "pay now for what you will get later...see look at how it worked in the past". Consumers care about where the technology is when they buy it. Advancements after that point just mean another adjustment, another cost, and more hassles.
I am seperating this next part to ensure it is seen:
I don't get how you can say "gpu multitasking doesn't require a state of the art card. It just requires an os kernel and graphics system that CAN do it." and not realize how much that clashes with the reality of the end user Vista experience?
Vista is an operating system that gives some of the lower mid-range cards a headache and in my experience it simply isn't something consumers want. Particularly not with Vienna on the horizon to replace it.
| Quote: C2) Once again I think you will find most people don't want this, you seem to realize that though so I am glad we are on the same page for this one. DRM is a great theory but the implementations of it to date have been atrocious. Agreed. I mentioned DRM for completeness.
|
I suspected as much, thats why I didn't cover it really.
| Quote: C3) This is what most people think of DX10 and it is why its hard for them to justify the upgrades necessary to utilize it. Think back to 1995. At the time we had DOS games and windows 3.1. But of course, you couldn't multitask at all. Win3.1 was unusable as a gaming platform because drawing through the win32 GDI api was dog slow. So games were written to run in dos mode, you couldn't put the game in a window and check your email, etc. Then Win95 came out, and it supported directX so games could get at the video hardware and it supported pre-emptive multitasking which was critcical for writing a very time/timing sensitive application like a game... but there was still a huge problem. Games still ran faster in dos with less resources. DirectX and preemptive multitasking was good, but you still had windows running in the background sucking up cpu cycles and holding onto a big chunk of RAM. So it was slower, and gamers didn't see any improvement in graphics. Sound familiar? Vista is Windows 95 all over again. New platform, that needs new drivers, backwards compatible with the previous version, but a lot of stuff isn't 100%. It has all these capabilities, but uses more resources and runs games slower.... Trust me. Suck it up. In 5 years we'll be looking at XP like we look at Windows 3.1/DOS, and it will be difficult to imagine someone saying, I can't beleive people couldn't see that the windows gaming was the future, that we absolutely had to dump the DOS mode single tasking model in order to get where we are today. I can't imagine not being able to alt-tab out a game to check email, check on a runnng torrent, jot a note down, or whatever. But in 1995 the gamers rejected windows 95 and just wanted developers to keep doing DOS games. They were faster and needed fewer resources. Why would Microsoft do this? Consumers would never upgrade! Gamer's would always prefer DOS! We can see how that turned out.
|
Except that applications still hold massive chunks of memory in the background even in Vista, so that problem is still around. I also have a huge problem with this idea that people should just "suck it up"...why should consumers spend their money on something that doesn't meet their needs now? Do you buy an empty gallon of milk at the store with the promise it will slowly fill over the next 3 years once you get it home? The simple fact is that logically they shouldn't. But if you follow the business model above it makes sense in that light only.
When MS gets this down to the point that it is useful and it actually provides benefit to the customer is when the customer will be interested. I don't buy the idea that because we are in the tough years of the OS cycle and history says things will be ok (which I actually disagree with but thats a whole other argument) we should stick with them regardless of how illogical it is and it will be ok again!
I don't disagree at all that the future for PC gaming is in Windows gaming, if for no reason than because MS knows how to keep its market share and it knows how to stay in the game. This doesn't mean it's the best solution, and it doesn't mean it's even a good solution.
If MS believes in its vision then they can justify making the investment and they will be vindicated when their advancements blow people away. But when Vista can hardly muster a stiff breeze I don't think it is hard to see why people are taking a pass on this one.
| Quote: C4) This is a practical feature....for developers. You will find that most consumers won't upgrade for this reason alone and probably feel that they aren't going to shell out extra cash to help wipe away the poor forward thinking of the industry. No worries in a couple of years most of these folks will upgrade on their own schedule and life will be good...but it still isn't a compelling reason for consumers to upgrade. Agreed. Again mentioned for completeness. Its an important feature of directX10 even if its not somehting consumers will know or care about.
|
You mentioned it for completeness and I responded for the same reason =) At least we can agree on one point~
It's a start lol.
| Quote: -cheers! |
Same to you~
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
