Could CELLs be used in PCs?
- Thread starter Se7en
- Start date
Shrike_Priest
Newcomer
Depends on your definition of "PC". Sony have already announced Cell Workstations that are meant to be used for digital content creation and game development. But it's definitely not a PERSONAL Computer 
Compare it to a Silicon Graphics workstation.
But you probably ain't gonna be seeing a Cell based Windows machine, if that's what you mean.
Compare it to a Silicon Graphics workstation.But you probably ain't gonna be seeing a Cell based Windows machine, if that's what you mean.
Yet another entry in the "forumer has a 'Get Marketshare Quick' idea that will never come to fruition" column.Alejux said:
Alejux said:
99%?
x86 is going nowhere. You have a ton of software investment that is tied to Windows plus a huge support community. How many businesses have spent millions on their HW and software libraries? And then you have all the huge OEMs and distributors that have connections to these companies... it is going to take a new platform being better in almost every way, including price, to chip away enough so that people can say "Bye Bye" to the PC as you insist.
Btw, by the time there is something competitive to the PC the PC will evolve. It always has. It is not like companies like Intel, AMD, DELL, (never ending list ensues...) and so forth will just roll over.
Acert93 said:Alejux said:
99%?
x86 is going nowhere. You have a ton of software investment that is tied to Windows plus a huge support community. How many businesses have spent millions on their HW and software libraries? And then you have all the huge OEMs and distributors that have connections to these companies... it is going to take a new platform being better in almost every way, including price, to chip away enough so that people can say "Bye Bye" to the PC as you insist.
Btw, by the time there is something competitive to the PC the PC will evolve. It always has. It is not like companies like Intel, AMD, DELL, (never ending list ensues...) and so forth will just roll over.
99% was just an exageration.
There's a clear trend in corporate computing, leading to online (internet/intranet) software. Even so, I agree with you, that businesses will still continue to use PC's for many years to come, due to their already existing software base.
What I was referring to, was the use of PC's at homes. The fact is, that the vast majority of home PC users, are not developers or graphics designers. Most of them use their computers for the tasks I mentioned on my post. If the right software is available to them, in a < U$ 500,00 supercomputer, many users won't see a reason why they should spend another U$ 1,000 - U$2.000 on a PC.
I don't think that the XBox2 or the PS3 will be the death of the PC. But it will be one of the steps towards what I think will be the convergence between computer and a general-purpose living room appliance. There are still too many obstacles to overcome in order for people to happily abandon their PCs. One of them being good and cheap HDTV's, another being faster broadband internet access (with a really fast internet, online software and content will REALLY pick up).
Perhaps the PS4/Xbox3 will be the death of the home PC. Or not. Who knows? All I know, is that I'm so fcking tired of Windows and Microsoft, that I'm waiting for the first reasonable chance to get rid of it. Can you imagine having a $500 system that you just turn it on an use it, without EVER having to worry about software installation, DLLs, spyware, viruses, registry, drivers... and still be able to run the best games in it?
About all the PC companies and such. They don't command the market. The market commands them. They'll just have to adapt, or die. Much like the mainframe business had to adapt (and many of them died).
It's not a joke. I've read hundreds of theories for takeover of the PC market posted by people like you, and exactly none of them have come to pass. The PC market is WAY too complex for a paragraph-long takeover plan. Anyway, I see you've recanted on your PS3 killing the PC theory, so the point's moot.Alejux said:
Alejux said:
A $500 PC already exists for the average user's tasks you mentioned in your post. 2.8ghz, 512MB, LCD monitor, and Windows included.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/pro..._desktop1_1?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Pipedream. If you allow a system to do everything a Windows PC does and it gets as popular as a Windows PC, it will end up with the same kind of problems Windows PCs have.
Inane_Dork said:
Well, mr. Inane (the name fits you), the fact that more and more people see the death of the PC (at least for general home use) should be taken as a sign that it may as well come to pass. Of course, if you want to believe that 15 years from now, people will still be using x86 PC's in their houses, be my guest.
As for my software company, and all my competitors, forgive us if we're not asking your opinion while we're converting all our software solutions into ASP (application service provider) so that in the near future, not only installation and maintance costs may drop drastically, but also so that our clients may run our software in any platform he chooses; from PC's to cell phones (and even possibly gaming consoles, if they run a compatible browser).
aaaaa00 said:
A U$ 500.00 computer doesn't run games at almost CG graphics level. If you want that, you'll have to spend at least 3X the amount. And a lot of home PC buyers want to play games. IMO, games are the major reason that people buy expensive computers. Why else would someone pay 2K on a computer? To run excel??
You just can't compare the power of the U$500.00 PC with a PS3/XB2. Unless PC graphics solutions have their price greatly, greatly reduced, cheap PC's will never be in the same ball park as consoles.
Well, first, you have to admit that Microsoft, has an incredible talent in creating virus-friendly environments.
But to counter what you said, I hardly think that a console, with a hardwired OS, running mostly on-line software, will be as vulnarable as a Windows PC is. I could be wrong, but I think that if they did it right, it could be much, much harder to create viruses for such a system.
Alejux said:
The average user will buy a console for games, and a PC for work. A $500 PC already exists for work -- AND it includes a monitor. The point stands. Until a console can run Office and ALL the apps a user would use on a daily basis, it can't replace a PC.
Microsoft can't dictate what you run on your PC -- and as far as I know, they have no intention to.
Imagine the uproar over Microsoft only allowing "approved" applications to run on your computer and not allowing you to modify your PC however you want -- oh wait, that's how consoles work.
Read what I wrote again. If you want a platform with all the flexability and power of a Windows PC, you're going to have to put up with some of the problems that brings. Any solution you can come up with that allows users to do whatever they want on their PCs will inevitably result in similar problems as Windows PCs have today -- virus, trojans, spyware.
The market has already demonstrated multiple times that people want control of their own PCs. Proposing a solution where someone else controls your apps and your data just demonstrates you do not understand the market.
aaaaa00 said:
Chances are, that the average user, that buys a cheap PC for work, will use a software found in an office suite. A console could come with a variety of the most popular applications available. But I agree with you, that such a solution, today, would prove too inflexible for most users.
But as I said earlier, in another post, I only believe that consoles will have a real chance against PC's when two things happen: Cheap HDTV's and really fast internet.
With a really fast internet connection (say...20 - 100MBits/s), the software philosophy may change a bit. You'll no longer need to install anything on your machine. The difference between a local software/storage space and a remote one, will practically disappear. When that happens, depending on the distributed computing solution , it won't matter which machine you're using, and what is your OS. But as I said, this would require a very fast connection available to the masses.
Microsoft can't dictate what you run on your computer.
Imagine the uproar over Microsoft only allowing "approved" applications to run on your computer and not allowing you to modify your PC however you want -- oh wait, that's how consoles work.
Microsoft created the Visual Basic macro system. They created Outlook express with all the holes in it. They created Windows all the holes in it too! What are you sugesting? Using Linux? Or are you sying that all the viruses and worms created because of MS's security holes are not their fault?
Same thing I explained above, about multi-platform on-line applications and ASPs.
I know they may be hard to believe at the moment. But so is a 100MBit connection. It changes everything.
Alejux said:Microsoft can't dictate what you run on your computer.
Imagine the uproar over Microsoft only allowing "approved" applications to run on your computer and not allowing you to modify your PC however you want -- oh wait, that's how consoles work.
Microsoft created the Visual Basic macro system.
So what? The macro system isn't all that different than shell scripts.
The scripting system isn't the problem, the problem is users accidentally running malicious scripts.
Which have been patched. The biggest problem with email virus today is people running attachments and/or running outdated versions of their clients.
MS's biggest mistake was not shipping Windows XP with the built-in firewall enabled - it would have prevented the RPC attack and just about all the worms that resulted from it.
SP2 corrected that problem.
What I am saying is, some of the problems are MS's fault yes. But most of the problem is letting people run whatever they want on their machines. Any time you have a wide open platform, you have people willing to exploit it for their own gain.
As long as you allow users to install "unapproved" software, Spyware and Trojans will exist.
As long as you allow users to send arbitrary attachments, email viruses will exist.
As long as you allow users to run any kind of app that listens on a port(tcp,ftp,web,smb filesharing), exploits will exist.
But I as a user don't want to give up the ability to install "unapproved" software, send whatever attachments I want, or run whatever apps I want.
We'll see.
I for one will never want someone else to control my personal machine, and as long as the next independent/garage developer can come up with the next big thing (bittorrent, linux, the original napster, IM, firefox, whatever), I will always want a platform where I can compile and run whatever I want, locally, on my own CPU, without big brother looking over my shoulder.
ASP = thanks but no thanks.
As for the subject of the thread, the answer is absolutely yes, if the market ever demanded it, Windows could run on a CELL-like architecture.
The Windows kernel already runs today on x86, AMD64, Itanium, and at least two other architectures (guess which two? ;-) ). It has run in the past on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, and Intel i860 (that version was never released).
The Windows kernel scales from 1 to 64 processors today. 128 on Itanium. It supports SMT, SMP, NUMA, and partitioning.
There is no question that as long as the CELL PU supports some basic MMU features, you could get Windows to run on it. (APUs are not suited for general purpose code, so you wouldn't run the OS there anyway.)
The problem is: what about all your millions of legacy apps? Unless you can run all of them perfectly as well, no ones going to bother with your CPU architecture, even if it is significantly superior in performance and competitive in cost. Ex: PowerPC/Alpha...
The Windows kernel already runs today on x86, AMD64, Itanium, and at least two other architectures (guess which two? ;-) ). It has run in the past on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, and Intel i860 (that version was never released).
The Windows kernel scales from 1 to 64 processors today. 128 on Itanium. It supports SMT, SMP, NUMA, and partitioning.
There is no question that as long as the CELL PU supports some basic MMU features, you could get Windows to run on it. (APUs are not suited for general purpose code, so you wouldn't run the OS there anyway.)
The problem is: what about all your millions of legacy apps? Unless you can run all of them perfectly as well, no ones going to bother with your CPU architecture, even if it is significantly superior in performance and competitive in cost. Ex: PowerPC/Alpha...
