[Link]

A new platform, built from the ground up: Yes, that would be the successor to Macintosh, what the Macintosh originally was!

I envision the successor to be a new machine, not necessarily in a new form factor, that would just be ideal, yet something that well, everything in it, is designed for it...

The processor would be a new processor from a company that's not AMD, Intel, Motorola or IBM -- the chipset would be something designed to run with it, and for this machine exclusively. The video chip would be completely designed to kick ass -- cost would not be a problem here!

The choices for what would go in the machine would be regarding what suits the machine best, and not what everyone else is using -- hard drives would need to be fast and well built, if they were used! The video processor would be able to drive a 30" like most video cards can drive a 14" monitor from 1991.

Yes, the operating system would be from the ground up - it might be "compatible with unix", sure, but it would still be from the ground up. Every line of code would be looked over, even that "standard code", optimized to its full potential for the new machine, and the GUI would require that monster of a video processor but would never lag.

That, my friends,might not be the best description in the world, but that is the successor to macintosh. Not a beige box, rather a box like no other. Perhaps Apple will make it, perhaps they will not.

Then John Dvorak will call it a "Piece of ****", and the successor to Macintosh community will begin

[andreas_g4]

I think paradigms will change and the sucessor to Macintosh will not be in a box. Quantum computer, maybe. Grid computing, more likely. Or a combination. IMHO, the computer of the future won't be anything hardware or anything software (like we know today). Everything we use will be focused on the purpose.

The physically available computer with a massive Central Processing Unit is a thing of tomorrow, the uber-computer that is nowhere near us will have lot of super massive Distributed Computing Units is what we will see the day after tomorrow. (no reference to the crappy movie...)

[Kerrigan]

unlike in the 80s, the market is now saturated with computers. there is no longer a demand for an innovative new platform so it will probably never be developed. even if it were developed, it would not catch on.

the internet right now is the new frontier, not the desktop computer.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

unlike in the 80s, the market is now saturated with computers. there is no longer a demand for an innovative new platform so it will probably never be developed. even if it were developed, it would not catch on.

the internet right now is the new frontier, not the desktop computer.

The time of revolutions is long past. New technologies are going to simply evolve, slowly.

[Link]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

unlike in the 80s, the market is now saturated with computers. there is no longer a demand for an innovative new platform so it will probably never be developed. even if it were developed, it would not catch on.

And yet you couldn't be any wronger!

To this date, I haven't met a single "average joe consumer" that had a Windows-based PC and was satisfied with it. In fact, it's so bad that people seem to assume that computers are "geeky" things that "nobody really gets" -- that they "crash a lot" and "that's just the way computers are"...

To further that, none of the big 4 processor manufacturers can seem to get things right right now: IBM is taking too long, Motorola was "long left" apparently, Intel can barely uphold ANY of their promises and you guys are all cheering them on, and AMD is well, using IBM's plants to pick up Intel's lost marketshare.

Computers are just barely becoming non-CPU centric -- they're just now beginning to get more things onto the GPU -- there's quartz 2D extreme to name an example, but Windows has an interface of that sort for vista too.. yet again, the conventional PC.. well it doesn't work there.

The conventional PC is filled with "compatibility" demand, yet people end up buying the newest version of their programs to run on Windows 2004359725 anyway! Therefore, backwards compatibility is FUD, and as long as the new programs can still open the old programs' files (think word and mail), then it doesn't matter whether the old programs run or not.

I can assure you that if 3 companies tomorrow released different but revolutionary machines that were *obviously* revolutionary, not something that you had to read a tech sheet to see, but something you could see immediately upon not only seeing the machine but using it for a moment or three, and they marketed these as much as apple markets say -- the iPod back when it came out, then there would be a LOT of demand for them.

If you can't see that, then you're blind.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Link

...wronger...

[andreas_g4]

[Tesseract]

[sugar_coated]

Anything is possible if something like that can happen.

[The Windozer]

The future is Windows! We will defeat you with flying compact discs and exploding emails! Then we will combine all the world's computer viruses into a giant electromagnetic storm and fry all Macintoshes on the planet! Prepare for a world of perforated computer security, spyware that downloads other spyware and millions of different applications that do the exact same thing!

You will all perish before the bluescreen of death, Macintoshers!

[Chuckit]

Have you done any market research to actually develop these suggestions about what would or would not work? Or even have any idea what "obviously revolutionary" actually means? You seem to be making vague assertions based on anecdotal evidence of people who don't like Windows but nevertheless haven't even tried anything else out.

Anyway, the successor to the original Macintosh is here — I'm using it! From my About This Mac box: "Mac OS X Version 10.4.1".

[Kerrigan]

Frankly, I don't understand what would drive the innovation of such a new platform. Computer sales have leveled out, and people upgrade their PCs (and Macs) with less and less frequency. Customers can do what they want using existing technologies, meaning that they are less inclined to switch over to a radical new system.

Surely people have problems with spam and viruses, but is not intolerable because if it were people would stop using computers. People are content with what they have.

Unless something catastrophic happens, then we can pretty much expect the PC platform to continue in its recognisable form for at least another decade or two (or longer). The frontier of technology is the internet, which still has a lot of growth potential ahead before it settles down.

[Big Mac]

A true computing revolution will most likely be of a type that fundamentally changes the way the user interacts with the world of data available. I wish I had the creative foresight to envision the general form of that advancement in more concrete terms.

[m a d r a]

the next step will be when we've all got our computers wired directly into our central nervous systems. windoze users will be recogniseable by their tendency to suddenly walk into walls or begin removing their trousers when someone asks them the time.

[boots]

We don't need a successor. We have zombocom. Anything is possible at zombocom.

[chris v]

Sounds like you've got your work cut out for you, link. Let's see what you've ordered here-- not ony a new processor, but a new manufacturer of processors to spring up from thin air, and totally redesign a new family of processsors. Then, all we'll need is an operating system, from the ground up, starting with the ones and zeroes.

Doesn't sound too difficult.

[zizban]

We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home

[alligator]

Why does it need to be a computer? It could be something we don't expect? What about a direct brain connection?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Ya I really want Apple to have proprietary technology again as that always means making things better.

[teszeract]

I think I've moved beyond arguments based on idealism. Unfortunately, I suppose.

[Y3a]

How about the new fibre optic/lightspeed technologies being applied to processors and graphics cards so they would process using LIGHT instead of electrical means gaining a five fold speed increase. Add the possibility of 16 processsors doing the sub tasks, and perhaps a system of memory crystals being hooked to the bus instead of hard drives. Of course the USER is still the slowest part...

[Pendergast]

Computers will evolve to be more portable yet have greater access to anything else.

There will not be a box, but instead, cpus will be wearable and constantly connected to the web, since most of the processing will be done through the Internet (or its successor). Whatever comes, quantum computing is a long way to become a reality, imho, but miniaturization and greater communicability between devices will mean greater portability.

Very likely the machine will recharge from ambiant magnetic fields or from friction/residual body heat, or using mechanical action from the heels, which makes sense to embed the machine in wearable fabrics.

Computer screens will be at home, yet very cheap (a modified version of Xerox paper), so anyone could have access to a video port on the street, for a small fee (less or equivalent to a payphone token). At home, the walls might be turned into screens.

I believe this could happen in the next 5 years.

[Kerrigan]

If only R&D labs would spend more time researching magic, then all of this could be happen in the next 5 years

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

If only R&D labs would spend more time researching magic, then all of this could be happen in the next 5 years

See you in 5!

[Kerrigan]

I bought a desktop PC back in 2001, it was 1 ghz. Here we are nearly 5 years later and the only things that have changed since then is that malware has gotten worse and components have gotten cheaper. Processors have increased in speed but the difference is negligible to the majority of users.

In 5 years the Mac market share will be even smaller, the iPod will be gone, and most people will still be running XP. Also, in five years you will be older and fatter, all the 80s-chic trends in fashion and music will be gone too, meaning that we should enjoy everything now because in 5 years we will all be worse off across the board!

(I'm being slightly sarcastic )

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I bought a desktop PC back in 2001, it was 1 ghz. Here we are nearly 5 years later and the only things that have changed since then is that malware has gotten worse and components have gotten cheaper. Processors have increased in speed but the difference is negligible to the majority of users.

In 5 years the Mac market share will be even smaller, the iPod will be gone, and most people will still be running XP. Also, in five years you will be older and fatter, all the 80s-chic trends in fashion and music will be gone too, meaning that we should enjoy everything now because in 5 years we will all be worse off across the board!

(I'm being slightly sarcastic )

Rightly so!

[discotronic]

We need to run our computers using Flux Capacitors.