This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Comparing computers to cars

#11razorracerPosted 6/2/2012 8:39:19 AM
As an auto enthusiast, I somewhat agree to that comparison. I mean graphics cards on PCs are no different than superchargers/turbochargers in cars IMO.
---
Proud PS Vita and 3DS owner
PSN ID: machismo83 Steam ID: razorracer83
#12LordSeiferPosted 6/2/2012 9:31:46 AM

Computers have specs. Cars have specs.


well that settles it.
---
^ this
#13CelebratoxPosted 6/2/2012 9:55:35 AM(edited)
This is actually the exact analogy I use when trying to demystify computers to people who overblow the intelligence of a system builder, and the fact that I can build them doesn't make me a genius or even smarter than average. Just like a car, they are made of standardized parts and each part can be replaced, upgraded, etc. In fact, they are much, much easier to build and maintain, by far, than even the simplest cars.

It's a great analogy, but I almost feel like it insults mechanics and people that really know cars. Compared to modern ATX standardized computers, cars are much more complicated (at least for the end user - I don't think we have to be reminded of how ridiculously complex a CPU is at the nano scale) and require a lot more general knowledge to modify and maintain.

If you really want computers and cars to be equal for the analogy, you'd have to include the software side and the multitude of programing languages. PC hardware alone is simple as hell to understand.
---
ASUS Sabertooth P67] i7 2600k @4.1 GHz w/Antec Kuhler] Vengence 8GB 1866] EVGA GTX 580] Corsair CMPSU-850HX]
#14DiehardFFv2Posted 6/2/2012 10:01:45 AM
The innate flaw with the comparison is that the roads you drive cars on(analogous to software) don't get any more difficult to drive(for the most part) whereas software requirements, especially video games, are forever rising. For example, you could take most any car from the 50's and replace any parts not working on it with parts that are of the same caliber and standard of the originals, and it will drive fine on just about any modern road you put it on. However, you can not do the same with a computer from even just ten years ago and expect it to run BF3 in any sort of acceptable manner.
---
i5 3570k @4.3 GHz / Asrock Z77 Extreme4 / 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 / MSI GTX 560 / Corsair Force GT 120GB / Seagate Barracuda 2TB
#15Xeeh_BitzPosted 6/2/2012 10:07:15 AM
razorracer posted...
As an auto enthusiast, I somewhat agree to that comparison. I mean graphics cards on PCs are no different than superchargers/turbochargers in cars IMO.


but they don't work the same...

overclocking is = to Superchargers/Turbochargers
---
2700K @ 4.5ghz(1.28v) | Sapphire 7970 Crossfire @ 1125/1500 | Samsung 830 SSD | 8GB Sniper | 500R | Corsair 850AX | Windblowz 7 Pro
#16Xeeh_BitzPosted 6/2/2012 10:10:52 AM
Celebratox posted...
This is actually the exact analogy I use when trying to demystify computers to people who overblow the intelligence of a system builder, and the fact that I can build them doesn't make me a genius or even smarter than average. Just like a car, they are made of standardized parts and each part can be replaced, upgraded, etc. In fact, they are much, much easier to build and maintain, by far, than even the simplest cars.

It's a great analogy, but I almost feel like it insults mechanics and people that really know cars. Compared to modern ATX standardized computers, cars are much more complicated (at least for the end user - I don't think we have to be reminded of how ridiculously complex a CPU is at the nano scale) and require a lot more general knowledge to modify and maintain.

If you really want computers and cars to be equal for the analogy, you'd have to include the software side and the multitude of programing languages. PC hardware alone is simple as hell to understand.


It's far more complicated than a car. If you're thinking of how a graphic card works, etc, etc.. Sure its simple but if you break down what is happening, its a far, far more complicated task than fuel combustion pushing some pistons around.
---
2700K @ 4.5ghz(1.28v) | Sapphire 7970 Crossfire @ 1125/1500 | Samsung 830 SSD | 8GB Sniper | 500R | Corsair 850AX | Windblowz 7 Pro
#17schadow(Topic Creator)Posted 6/2/2012 10:32:02 AM
Analogy:
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

When you compare a car to a computer, you do it for the sake of explaining things in a way most people will be familiar with, and not to make up stupid comparisons like "if a car has airbags, what do computers have?"
---
Soundcloud.com/komodovaran
My humble hobby project. Comment/rate if you have the spare time!
#18MachEvolutionPosted 6/2/2012 10:56:18 AM
The problem comes from people scrutinizing the analogy too closely which causes it to fall apart. They ignore the fact that most analogies aren't designed for such close attention to detail. As far as analogies go though, computers and cars is one of the best ones around, it holds up a lot better than most other analogies.

To summarize, people who whine about computer/car analogies are just trying to cause problems.
#19Marioface5Posted 6/2/2012 10:58:34 AM
The car analogies on this board are usually completely awful. I've seen people compare DLC to your car not having vital parts included in it upon purchase.
---
The world gets weirder every day.
PSN: Marioface5
#20pspmaster23Posted 6/2/2012 11:03:19 AM
how much would a $2,ooo car last me? or should i upgrade to a $4,ooo car?
but then again they have a car for $8500, i want it to last,

but i am paying twice as much, or should i keep saving and pay 3 times as much?

then again i have to put in what specs i need, and what would a good mpg range should i aim for?

then again if i wanted cheaper insurance warranty on my car, i need to make sure it's not a sports car, cause it would just cost me more in the ling run
---
i39.tinypic.com/15zf39y.jpg i40.tinypic.com/vzyq6t.jpg <D2 My Puppie>
Psn Demon_SouL Account made-Dec/06 Youtube.com/Demonsouls15