Can’t wait to come back and revive this thread

Btw, I contacted Intel to see if they would like to comment on the article and ask them what would be the biggest obstacle in designing something like this, but we have been ignored so far.

I was reading an article from 2003 last night about some guy who put a computer in his E46. He was using wireless keyboard and mouse (gyration), which looked pretty practical.

Maybe you should patent it and submit it to car LCD makers under NDA . They have the sales channels and computer-capable suppliers.

The video conferencing would be sweet, although I think prior art was established in Night Rider episodes. The possibilities are endless though— like videoconferencing with the kids in the back to stop fighting, or with the cop tailing you at 130mph, or recording everybody’s expression in an accident situation.

There would be two of them, one in the back of each chair.

And yes, my idea will be implemented Now if I could only get Intel to see this article )))

It makes far more sense if the passenger is the person of import, like a limousine or business scenario. The videoconferencing idea is a good one, and syncing/accessing materials where you’re in a discussion. I can’t picture doing much PC-specific work though, wouldn’t they just opt for a laptop? So it would have to be a very lean general purpose convenience tool.

For the technology side, would this be a shared computer, or individual units in the dash or seatbacks? If they were in the seatbacks like current 7-9″ LCDs then the compact/low power SOC-type computers make a lot of sense. You could even have a web client for a laptop to access your car WLAN if necessary.

There’s actually a lot of cool possibilities with this. Imagine passengers finding points of interest via google and adding waypoints to the GPS. Your idea is probably inevitable

And like I said Doug, the computer will be available for those sitting in the back and it will resemble a regular laptop.

The smartphone is a good example of a “PC” replacing a single-purpose device. I’ve had a number of MS smartphones (mpx200, mpx220, i617) and they’ve all aggravated the me with bugs, fundamental design issues, software compatibility problems, inexplicable behavior, etc.

For example, I got the i617 for it’s ability to run 3rd party apps and be customizable. I got the carrier’s GPS software. It was also a client-based application, where it would submit the GPS coordinates and the server would return maps, voice instructions, traffic, etc. However, given the innacuracy of the GPS, the delay in server requests and the GPRS coverage in some areas, the software was an utter failure. The end result was incorrect and inaccurate directions. I later got the Garmin XT software which is fantastic, but mainly because its performance wasn’t undermined by assumptions about the myriad of scenarios.

The former software gave me such bad and late instructions that I damaged my car avoiding an accident (at night, in the rain, in heavy traffic) because it thought I was pointing in completely the wrong direction at an intersection. Then there was the screensaver problem. It was just too complicated a platform for such a critical application, and sapped up my attention.

I just can’t see using PC-style applications in a car, they unfortunately require the attention that you need for the road. Especially if it’s from Microsoft !

So, why do you say it will be not supportable and a safety hazard?

I’m not sure that the hardware (or hardware vendor) is much of an issue, because they all have a wide range of power consumption and possible form factors. This is assuming that the general-purpose chips is what you want, because 1) they tend to be far less efficient for many specific computation-intensive tasks, and 2) they tend to require more software development to implement those specific tasks, meaning more bugs and idiosyncrasies. How awful would it be to have a windows or iphone-style OS and need constant updates, or have to live with shoddy software released with the assumption of fixing it later?

Actually Horatiu, I would go with AMD because of the upcoming Fusion platform (2010?) which has a cell-like architecture of CPU and general-purpose computation units. This reduces the form factor and power requirements for general-purpose computers that require accelerated computation like video decoding, video processing for pedestrian detection and so forth. If they want to go that way.

Ultimately though, I think that it would be a dubious decision for car companies to release something with so much potential for problems; it would be unsupportable, and a potential safety hazard. However, despite saying that, I’d love to have the internet accessible that I depend on 24×7 there with me and not have to fumble with my blackberry and/or blackjack to get at it. If I can customize and extend it, I’m all for that — unless it gets me killed.

@Auday, not sure if I agree with the IBM Power PC being used as a mobile platform, but I do see the PS3 arhitecture being more suitable.

Don’t disregard Intel though, when it comes to mobile computing, they have come a long way and their latest platforms were impressive, without getting into the GHZ war game.

Now as far as us buying cars for the driving experience, totally agree with that statement, but you cannot disregard the other 5% that buy the 7 series for example as a work car with a driver.

That’s why, the in-car PC should be offered as an option, not standard, and a decent price. I’ll bet you any money that more people will order it.

Either way, whichever operating system you choose to put on the in car computer, it should have an API for developers to create apps for it. Every aspect of the system should be preferably customizable (like Google Android’s platform).

I disagree with the touch screen as it’s bad for colder climates (I live in Canada ) and it’s a usability issue (I find that I need to bend over to touch the screen, or the screen is too close to me if I don’t have to bend over when I should be focusing on the road instead of the computer). Just because something is touch screen doesn’t make it more user friendly

I believe BMW is going in the right direction with the new iDrive and the way it’s used. I haven’t used it myself, but it looks very nice and user friendly. The next step would be to open that up to developers, then I’d be I heaven Nice post Horatiu, it’s been a good discussion.

Regardless of that, and with the risk of going a bit off topic, I don’t think Intel is the right way to go. Intel processors are the most advanced in terms of processor clock (the high frequency their chips can reach, which also means lots of heating and power consumption), but the worst when it comes to processor architecture. The x86 (from the 8086 of the 70s to the Core Duo of today) has a very complicated design with over 70% overhead just to keep it backward compatible with all generation Intel. For a portable in car machine you need a light, agile and efficient processor, and the best candidate for that IMO is IBM’s PowerPC or even better the Cell Architecture (used in PS3). As for the OS, a solid system that provides less features but more reliability is a must, so Windows is out and IMO even OSX (Mac OS) is not suitable. The iPhone OS is pretty solid and Apple will most probably expand the iPhone/iPodTouch to be a standard for multiple uses including tablets and smaller portables.

BTW, Japanese cars like Honda and Lexus have touch screens for their onboard computers years ago, and their systems are better and more user friendly, so BMW needs to catch up first.

But yes, the possibilities are endless and many things could be accomplished