In response to this comment by BLuDeCKSTARK on the recent 6800 GS article:
...
Early in the article you mention that the X1300 or the 6200 card would be plenty of power to run grannie's computer for $50 - $75. Why does the recommendation for this type of computer keep increasing? Not that long ago everyone was saying an MX200 was plenty for Mom, now we have to the latest GPU family to run Outlook? Most Intel MB reviews state that the IGP is fine for Aunt Virginia and it is free (basically). I just wonder where the cutoff is on 5th generation spreadsheet graphics rendering. Until there is some increase in graphics complexity in MS Office I can't see the need to buy anything other than an IGP board for the purposes mentioned.
Yes, I have heard that Vista is gonna smoke the cheap cards, so maybe now is the time to increase the minimum power standard, but will it keep increasing from there? If a card can run Aero at release does the GPU recommendation ever need to be changed until Aero does?
If I am wrong please let me know so I can track the necessary changes in the future. Uncle Delbert needs a new box so he can find out what all this Pr0n stuff is, he's been hearing about at the Sunday meetin'.
...
-----
I was going to post a short comment on the article myself, but I ended up getting into a bit of a rant. Here's the end result:
You raise a question that is at the heart of much debate, both here at AT and through out the rest of the community.
Let me give you my perspective on this issue.
Integrated video from anyone other than ATI and NVIDIA is garbage. The issue is complex and has to do with performance and features.
Let's look at the Intel case. Yes, Aero is supposed to be supported. But how effective and responsive is that support going to be? The first major issue is performance, especially for the next generation interfaces coming down the pipe. Just because your grandma is old and slow doesn't mean her computer should be. Most of the experience I have in introducing comptuers to my older relatives who have tried to avoid the situation altogether is that they get easily frustrated by a non-repsonsive interface.
When my mom was first using a computer, if she moved a window and it took a second or two to redraw, she would freak out and think she broke stuff (sorry ma, I'm illustrating a point). When things happen that don't make sense in the visual interface, it throws off the new user. It doesn't matter how intuitive the design or effective the presentation if it frustrates the user with poor performance.
Take OSX -- the Expose feature is incredible, tremendously useful and something I've wanted (but never knew I needed) in an interface for a while. But performance sux on moderately powered machines. Even the high powered beasts have their limits if you end up having a lot of crap open at a time (like most of the AT editors are inclined to do). As a result, I can assure you that my grandma would hate it.
Without good performance, new adult uses will not be inclined to take advantage of productivity enhancing features. Why have 10 windows open at a time and switch between them if the display is more responsive with one window open. Granted, this kind of thing isn't a major issue in Windows XP right now. But how can we move forward unless we can gaurantee smooth performance on easier to use interface designs? Sure, Aero and Aqua and all the cool stuff may look "simple" from a useability perspective, but a lot of it is very complex from a graphics and programming perspective.
Doesn't grandma deserve a fluid, responsive and easy to use interface?
Granted, we don't know exactly what demands Vista will place on hardware yet, but part of that will definitely be in the hands of the user and how far they want to push the computer.
The second issue is feature set. Granted, Vista is a major driving force in the widespread adoption of a minimal DX9 featureset. But what features would be helpful to apple? What about any of the multitude of unix style window managers? Without full support for OpenGL 2 and DirectX 9, developers are limited in the ways they can push an interface designed for everyone. There are problems in some games with Intel integrated graphics that render them unplayable (pun intended). Sure, it may not be important for Vista, but it limits the rest of the development community as well. And what about application developers that may want to get onboard with some hardware accerlerated graphics interfaces?
It all comes down to designing for the majority of people. The higher the minimum standard on the majority of systems, the better all application and interface design can become.
So then we have to look at the definition of need. Does grandma need a pretty interface that isn't slow to type her letters to her grandkids? Maybe need is too strong a word, but let's look at this example. Does anyone aside from an engineer or professional gamer need a 3d accelerator? No. No one needs to play games. No one needs a quick, responsive interface. If grandma can deal with it, so can you. Just because someone knows there's something better out there doesn't mean they deserve better performance than a new user. Maybe an enthusiast would appreciate the performance of an FX-60 with low latency PC4000 ram and a crossfire setup with X1900XTX and a lynx Two B auido card hooked up to a 30" Apple Cinima display and an incredible sound system. But that doesn't mean grandma wouldn't enjoy it.
"Need" is a tough sell in the computer industry. Everyone's definition is different. Remembering Norton Commander and Windows 3.1 running on a 286, I know I could make due with very little. But I also know I'm much more productive and happy on a system that can handle running many applications at a time on a large display.
I don't know about you, but if I give my grandma a PC, I'd rather see her productive and happy with it (and thus more likely to stick with it after learning how to use it) than simply capable of using Excel, Word, and Outlook Express.
But what are your thoughts on the issue?
...
Early in the article you mention that the X1300 or the 6200 card would be plenty of power to run grannie's computer for $50 - $75. Why does the recommendation for this type of computer keep increasing? Not that long ago everyone was saying an MX200 was plenty for Mom, now we have to the latest GPU family to run Outlook? Most Intel MB reviews state that the IGP is fine for Aunt Virginia and it is free (basically). I just wonder where the cutoff is on 5th generation spreadsheet graphics rendering. Until there is some increase in graphics complexity in MS Office I can't see the need to buy anything other than an IGP board for the purposes mentioned.
Yes, I have heard that Vista is gonna smoke the cheap cards, so maybe now is the time to increase the minimum power standard, but will it keep increasing from there? If a card can run Aero at release does the GPU recommendation ever need to be changed until Aero does?
If I am wrong please let me know so I can track the necessary changes in the future. Uncle Delbert needs a new box so he can find out what all this Pr0n stuff is, he's been hearing about at the Sunday meetin'.
...
-----
I was going to post a short comment on the article myself, but I ended up getting into a bit of a rant. Here's the end result:
You raise a question that is at the heart of much debate, both here at AT and through out the rest of the community.
Let me give you my perspective on this issue.
Integrated video from anyone other than ATI and NVIDIA is garbage. The issue is complex and has to do with performance and features.
Let's look at the Intel case. Yes, Aero is supposed to be supported. But how effective and responsive is that support going to be? The first major issue is performance, especially for the next generation interfaces coming down the pipe. Just because your grandma is old and slow doesn't mean her computer should be. Most of the experience I have in introducing comptuers to my older relatives who have tried to avoid the situation altogether is that they get easily frustrated by a non-repsonsive interface.
When my mom was first using a computer, if she moved a window and it took a second or two to redraw, she would freak out and think she broke stuff (sorry ma, I'm illustrating a point). When things happen that don't make sense in the visual interface, it throws off the new user. It doesn't matter how intuitive the design or effective the presentation if it frustrates the user with poor performance.
Take OSX -- the Expose feature is incredible, tremendously useful and something I've wanted (but never knew I needed) in an interface for a while. But performance sux on moderately powered machines. Even the high powered beasts have their limits if you end up having a lot of crap open at a time (like most of the AT editors are inclined to do). As a result, I can assure you that my grandma would hate it.
Without good performance, new adult uses will not be inclined to take advantage of productivity enhancing features. Why have 10 windows open at a time and switch between them if the display is more responsive with one window open. Granted, this kind of thing isn't a major issue in Windows XP right now. But how can we move forward unless we can gaurantee smooth performance on easier to use interface designs? Sure, Aero and Aqua and all the cool stuff may look "simple" from a useability perspective, but a lot of it is very complex from a graphics and programming perspective.
Doesn't grandma deserve a fluid, responsive and easy to use interface?
Granted, we don't know exactly what demands Vista will place on hardware yet, but part of that will definitely be in the hands of the user and how far they want to push the computer.
The second issue is feature set. Granted, Vista is a major driving force in the widespread adoption of a minimal DX9 featureset. But what features would be helpful to apple? What about any of the multitude of unix style window managers? Without full support for OpenGL 2 and DirectX 9, developers are limited in the ways they can push an interface designed for everyone. There are problems in some games with Intel integrated graphics that render them unplayable (pun intended). Sure, it may not be important for Vista, but it limits the rest of the development community as well. And what about application developers that may want to get onboard with some hardware accerlerated graphics interfaces?
It all comes down to designing for the majority of people. The higher the minimum standard on the majority of systems, the better all application and interface design can become.
So then we have to look at the definition of need. Does grandma need a pretty interface that isn't slow to type her letters to her grandkids? Maybe need is too strong a word, but let's look at this example. Does anyone aside from an engineer or professional gamer need a 3d accelerator? No. No one needs to play games. No one needs a quick, responsive interface. If grandma can deal with it, so can you. Just because someone knows there's something better out there doesn't mean they deserve better performance than a new user. Maybe an enthusiast would appreciate the performance of an FX-60 with low latency PC4000 ram and a crossfire setup with X1900XTX and a lynx Two B auido card hooked up to a 30" Apple Cinima display and an incredible sound system. But that doesn't mean grandma wouldn't enjoy it.
"Need" is a tough sell in the computer industry. Everyone's definition is different. Remembering Norton Commander and Windows 3.1 running on a 286, I know I could make due with very little. But I also know I'm much more productive and happy on a system that can handle running many applications at a time on a large display.
I don't know about you, but if I give my grandma a PC, I'd rather see her productive and happy with it (and thus more likely to stick with it after learning how to use it) than simply capable of using Excel, Word, and Outlook Express.
But what are your thoughts on the issue?