Computers in Rifts

[MikelAmroni]

Personally, not much. For places like the NGR and Japan, I give some details, but I'm also vague there too.

For the record, if you watch Defying Gravity (on ABC.com or Hulu) you'll see a realtively accurate portrayal of computer tech fifty years (2052) from now. Micro-thin glass displays with all the HD you could expect, holographic interfaces, although limited in use, etc.

From now on I'm using that when I need a visual reference for computers in rifts that aren't the ones actually in the books (the handhelds - which are analagous to Toughbooks today).

But I like the tact Palladium took with computers. Take current specs, multiply by 100, and voila, future tech. interfaces are the only thing really of interest to players. I don't see VR being THAT popular, except to replace expensive holographic interfaces (we can project it into mid air, or we can priject it into their minds - I think the last one is cheaper and less prone to failure).

[glitterboy2098]

desktops will never die out, they'll just get more powerful. think modern super computer level.

however, i would point out that unless some major innovation comes around for computing, you'll hit a plateu in power. we're already reaching that level for some things (optical and magnetic data storage, microchip transistor size), where unless some improved (but still affordable) manufacturing method or viable alternative is found, we won't get much beyond. for example, using current manufacturing processes, we've hit a wall in shrinking the size of the transistors on microchips. any smaller and you have problems with electrical leakage. there are some new methods of production that seem to offer a temporary fix, if they could be made affordable, but it's likely the big change will come from 'spintronics', which uses th spin of electrons to determain the on/off state, rather than voltage variations. it would allow for lower power electronics, and more powerful chips for their size as a result. i suspect the use of fiber-optic cable will replace regular wires for long distance data transfer, too. higher bandwith. wether optical or quantum computing takes off, or stas a niche field is up to the Gm. it doesn't seem like it has in the canon..

magnetic data storage and Flash-ROM storage have both hit their upper limit on data density, so improving data storage without just using bigger storage drives will require some new technology. blueray did that for optical disks, and i suspect 'holographic' data storage will prove best here. the big hurdle is selectively growing crystalline structures..a technology that has been highly developed in rifts canon, and evidenced by M.D.C. armor, which could only get it's resiliance through metamaterial properties, properties based on the structure of the molecules of the material.

i would argue that asie from places like triax, most computers aren't much better than we have today or near future. mainly because most places have had to 'rediscover' how to produce computer technology..which usually means cheaper and more error friendly methods. which tend to produce less powerful products. it's also likely that there is an eclectic level of computer capabilites. a robot computer might be bledding edge compared to today, but the handhelds might be like a PDA from the 90's..just because the handheld was intended for cheap mass production and limited features, while the robot has to be fairl advanced to work at all. different manfacturers are likely to be at different levels of technological progression, due to different rates or rediscovery of techniques, and different initial starting knowledge.

[Library Ogre]

I rather like the Shadowrun approach: name everything in a fictional unit, then keep units consistent.

"Yeah, I have a 1000 megapulses of memory on here."

[Nekira Sudacne]

[spoiler]By 2020 the desktop computer had become virtually obsolete. Laptops had become just as fast at the same cost and all laptops and televisions came standard with wireless compatibility allowing one to use the larger television screen when desired. A breakthrough in rechargeable battery technology around this time also provided a boost to both laptop and electric car manufacturing. Desktops went the way of the dot-matrix printer.

Logically inconsistant. the only reason a desktop is more powerful than a laptop is that they are physically larger.

You can make a laptop as good as todays best desktops, but with the same technology, you will make a desktop even better than the laptop by making it physically larger.

Computers scale well to size. Whatever technology makes a laptop great will make a desktop better.

[grandmaster z0b]

I think the important thing is to focus on the interface and end result rather than any numbers. For example some Rifts computers have 3d holographic screens, so I assume they would have some sort of sensors that allow you to interact with the 3d display physically. So if there is a projection of a map you can put your hand on it and move it around to look at it at different angles or touch a holographic series of buttons, kind of like the interface from "Minority Report" but in 3D.

I also assume that the radio built into all EBA/PA/Robots is digital radio that can also send large packets of data, so you can send videos, images, programs etc. via all those radios. It makes a lot of sense in a world with high tech computers but no satellites and little to no cables in the ground to send all of your data as encrypted digital radio.

[Crucible]

Wow, I thought about this as well. Would cyberspace cease to exist in the case of an apocalypse or would it lie dorment until linked again.

[Rahmota]

yeah I take the Shadowrun terminology as well as has been shown by the books and some shows and movies reality catches up pretty quick when you use real high powered computer tech talk in a fictional work.

I like the show Defyign Gravity's depictions of high tech stuff too. Very clean and logical and makes sense and looks really real. Minority report I could see too from the descriptions of stuff during the golden age. Also watch CSI Miami and some of the stuff they are using is a bit uber tech. So you could say CSI Miami's visuals then Defying gravities then minority reports in the timeline of things. As well as voice interaction and cyber jacking.

And cyberspace would require the recreation of enough data nodes and servers and such to rexist. I'm pretty sure some of the large enough powers might have their own local version of cyberspace (especially the coalition states beign the highest tech power on Noram arguably).

[grandmaster z0b]

One of the Rifters has a whole article about the internet on Rifts earth.

[Library Ogre]

Wow, I thought about this as well. Would cyberspace cease to exist in the case of an apocalypse or would it lie dorment until linked again.

Yes and no. While individual systems may be protected enough to survive 300 years without maintenence, it's unlikely that any multiple-site network would.

[Nightmaster]

Logically inconsistant. the only reason a desktop is more powerful than a laptop is that they are physically larger.

You can make a laptop as good as todays best desktops, but with the same technology, you will make a desktop even better than the laptop by making it physically larger.

Computers scale well to size. Whatever technology makes a laptop great will make a desktop better.

I don't really disagree with you, but I guess my problem was I wasn't clear enough on the economics behind my explanation. My projection is that the cost differential between laptops and desktops will eventually become so small as to be negligible, at which point mass production for laptops will outstrip that of desktops, driving the price of laptops down and reducing the demand for desktops. When you can have the same amount of power as a desktop, but you only need to pay $10 more, cost isn't an issue. And at that point supply and demand and mass production comes into play. If the demand for laptops continues to increase, supply will increase, leading to greater mass production which will lower the price. As demand for desktops decreases, supply will decrease, and mass production will decrease, causing them to fill only a niche market, potentially raising the price.

You missed the point that Nekira said. The difference between desktops and laptops will always be the same in proportion. The reason for that is the same as Nekira said: Size.

Today desktops cost less than laptops of the same capacity and desktops will always be more potent in terms of processing capacity, speed and data storage due to the fact that they can be larger and require less sofistication in its components if compared to laptops. Also you forget that laptops were created for a nich in the market for personal portable computers that only people that are always in transit in their daily activities would need. Most of such people are executives and lawyers that dont have time to sit down on their tables to write down petitions and the like due to the fact they are always going to some place to meet someone or to have a hearing with a judge and etc etc.

Even if technology increase by leaps and bonds in the next 100 years, desktops will always be prefered by the large population due to easy of use and the fact that the majority of the people dont really have use for a portable computer in their daily activities. Today trend of people wishing laptops only happens because people buy then for the "knewl" appeal they have, but once they see the limitations that the laptop have compared to desktops (maintenance, upgrade, speed and processing capacity, etc etc) they turn to desktops. In fact most people that have laptops have also a desktop on their homes because of that.

The final reason is that like Nekira said if you use all the technology that increased the laptops capacity to create a desktop you will end you with a computer far more powerful than the laptop and that desktop would cost a lot less to produce due to the fact it will not need all the miniaturization that a laptop need to be produced.

All in all desktops will never fade in the market, sure they will become smaller than today desktops but they will never lose their market to laptops because every custumer will wish to have a more powerful computer that is easy to use, upgrade and maintain.

And cyberspace would require the recreation of enough data nodes and servers and such to rexist. I'm pretty sure some of the large enough powers might have their own local version of cyberspace (especially the coalition states beign the highest tech power on Noram arguably).

I don't remember exactly where it states this, but the internet does exist within the CS, although it is all hardlines (no satellites). IIRC they also have an undersea cable linking them with the NGR. Download/upload times are probably very long overseas (and restricted access) but it does exist. There are also hints that numerous other kingdoms have tapped into cyberspace as well, some friendly nations even sharing access with the CS.

Yeah I too wish to see in what book there is such information, principally the NGR cable thing.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Logically inconsistant. the only reason a desktop is more powerful than a laptop is that they are physically larger.

You can make a laptop as good as todays best desktops, but with the same technology, you will make a desktop even better than the laptop by making it physically larger.

Computers scale well to size. Whatever technology makes a laptop great will make a desktop better.

I don't really disagree with you, but I guess my problem was I wasn't clear enough on the economics behind my explanation. My projection is that the cost differential between laptops and desktops will eventually become so small as to be negligible, at which point mass production for laptops will outstrip that of desktops, driving the price of laptops down and reducing the demand for desktops. When you can have the same amount of power as a desktop, but you only need to pay $10 more, cost isn't an issue. And at that point supply and demand and mass production comes into play. If the demand for laptops continues to increase, supply will increase, leading to greater mass production which will lower the price. As demand for desktops decreases, supply will decrease, and mass production will decrease, causing them to fill only a niche market, potentially raising the price.

All depends on what people want and need. Right now the cost difference is too high to really say which will come into higher demand if the price evens out.

I will say this though: Even if the laptop becomes cheeper, desktops won't die out, simply because the keyboard and mouse being sepearte from the computer and monitor is far, far too useful as interface tools for the portable version to ever replace them.

I've had both, and I use the desktop. not because it's better, but because the interface is superior.

and no amount of increase in power or decrese in price will change the fact that laptops are freaking painful to use.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Logically inconsistant. the only reason a desktop is more powerful than a laptop is that they are physically larger.

You can make a laptop as good as todays best desktops, but with the same technology, you will make a desktop even better than the laptop by making it physically larger.

Computers scale well to size. Whatever technology makes a laptop great will make a desktop better.

I don't really disagree with you, but I guess my problem was I wasn't clear enough on the economics behind my explanation. My projection is that the cost differential between laptops and desktops will eventually become so small as to be negligible, at which point mass production for laptops will outstrip that of desktops, driving the price of laptops down and reducing the demand for desktops. When you can have the same amount of power as a desktop, but you only need to pay $10 more, cost isn't an issue. And at that point supply and demand and mass production comes into play. If the demand for laptops continues to increase, supply will increase, leading to greater mass production which will lower the price. As demand for desktops decreases, supply will decrease, and mass production will decrease, causing them to fill only a niche market, potentially raising the price.

All depends on what people want and need. Right now the cost difference is too high to really say which will come into higher demand if the price evens out.

I will say this though: Even if the laptop becomes cheeper, desktops won't die out, simply because the keyboard and mouse being sepearte from the computer and monitor is far, far too useful as interface tools for the portable version to ever replace them.

I've had both, and I use the desktop. not because it's better, but because the interface is superior.

and no amount of increase in power or decrese in price will change the fact that laptops are freaking painful to use.

People are using laptops more and more these days. It is reasonable to assume that most people in the future with for go the desk top altogether. 60years into the future there will most likely be superior ways to interface with your computer rather than a mouse and keyboard.

you can just as easially say that 60 years into the future laptops will be obsolete in favor a tiny wristwatch that generates a holographic image of a desktop and all the interface you could ever want.

Suffice it to say, neither option would actually be more powerful than a desktop.

[Nightmaster]

Some years ago a Austrian Company (Gericom) build and sold a series of Laptops that where using mostly desktop components. The resulting boxes where as powerful as the same generation desktop systems. What they lacked where the expansion slots. But even back in 2003 those got used less and less by business users since the laptop had "everything and a kitchen sink" build in (Including dual display support, something my stock DELL Optiplex lacked) The systems had their problems like a short battery life (In the 1.5-2h range) and noisy fans but given RiftsTech one can eliminate those easily

And before that there where "semi-laptops" and "portables" that packed full-powered systems in a rugged, portable chassis but dropped the batteries. We had an old Acer-Box of that style and used it as a mobile data logger/maintenance terminal for years. Today the boxes are rare and mostly sold as SPS programing stations (Siemens has a range) but they still exist.

Today the ONLY technical reason desktops are more powerful is power - The users expect laptops to run 3+ hours on battery (6+ for the Netbooks) and be lightweight (<= 2kg) That limits the CPU power that can go in those boxes. Rifts has "super batteries" that eliminate the problem.

The rest is "user interface device" stuff and Rifts has Holo-Displays and Huds en masse so that problem should be solved just as well.


P.S: Yes, I own one of Gericoms "Turbines". A 2.54Mhz PIV with 2.5MByte of memory was quite a box in 2003. Only recently has the systems HardDisk died but will likely be replaced "just because" it still makes a decend "hobby room" system

Again the only market for those "special laptops" were for the businessmen and lawyers. The majority of the main population dont have need of a portable computer of the kind of laptops and most of the time they get disapointed with the lack of capacity that laptops have.

Even you example was like "one of a kind" and which one single company decided to produce this laptop. I guess it dindt sell very well because I dont see today companies producing this type of "laptop". Most probaly the price was a bit to salty for most custumers (IMHO).

[Nightmaster]

Some years ago a Austrian Company (Gericom) build and sold a series of Laptops that where using mostly desktop components. The resulting boxes where as powerful as the same generation desktop systems. What they lacked where the expansion slots. But even back in 2003 those got used less and less by business users since the laptop had "everything and a kitchen sink" build in (Including dual display support, something my stock DELL Optiplex lacked) The systems had their problems like a short battery life (In the 1.5-2h range) and noisy fans but given RiftsTech one can eliminate those easily

And before that there where "semi-laptops" and "portables" that packed full-powered systems in a rugged, portable chassis but dropped the batteries. We had an old Acer-Box of that style and used it as a mobile data logger/maintenance terminal for years. Today the boxes are rare and mostly sold as SPS programing stations (Siemens has a range) but they still exist.

Today the ONLY technical reason desktops are more powerful is power - The users expect laptops to run 3+ hours on battery (6+ for the Netbooks) and be lightweight (<= 2kg) That limits the CPU power that can go in those boxes. Rifts has "super batteries" that eliminate the problem.

The rest is "user interface device" stuff and Rifts has Holo-Displays and Huds en masse so that problem should be solved just as well.


P.S: Yes, I own one of Gericoms "Turbines". A 2.54Mhz PIV with 2.5MByte of memory was quite a box in 2003. Only recently has the systems HardDisk died but will likely be replaced "just because" it still makes a decend "hobby room" system

Again the only market for those "special laptops" were for the businessmen and lawyers. The majority of the main population dont have need of a portable computer of the kind of laptops and most of the time they get disapointed with the lack of capacity that laptops have.

Even you example was like "one of a kind" and which one single company decided to produce this laptop. I guess it dindt sell very well because I dont see today companies producing this type of "laptop". Most probaly the price was a bit to salty for most custumers (IMHO).

Actually the beast was in the lower cost range for laptops, sold through the major german chain of electronic stores (We have only one with two different "brand names") and there where quite a few different types including units with the HT-Series CPU. Add in that they had (for the time) good "external" (That is with dedicated memory and even upgradabel) graphic cards and other "gamer related" equipment they where clearly aimed at (and arrived at) the consumers market. In the years 2002-2005 they where actually quite common units as they could handle games and massiv programming tasks. Actually the one place I wouldn't want to use them is in a shared office (They where not that silent) or on the constant move. Capability-wise the beast outperformed my business desktop (A then-current model DELL Optiplex) on quite a few points including the vendor-supplied graphic card. (The Laptop is a privat box)

And as said quite a few manufacturers build "heavy duty" laptops even today. Aside from the "SPS" oriented systems (That are still Intel-boxes) there is DELL with the big gamer laptop and you can even get laptop-cased SPARC and AS/400 based systems.

Quite a few questions:

A) Are they still produced?

B) What are their specs?

C) How much they cost in comparision with desktops?


I make that questions because a lot of equipment and technology that is commom in Europe dont reach the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, mainly USA, and if it dont hit USA preatty much it dont reach here in Brazil so I dont know about then in the first place.

[Overlord Rikonius]

All depends on what people want and need. Right now the cost difference is too high to really say which will come into higher demand if the price evens out.

I will say this though: Even if the laptop becomes cheeper, desktops won't die out, simply because the keyboard and mouse being sepearte from the computer and monitor is far, far too useful as interface tools for the portable version to ever replace them.

I've had both, and I use the desktop. not because it's better, but because the interface is superior.

and no amount of increase in power or decrese in price will change the fact that laptops are freaking painful to use.

People are using laptops more and more these days. It is reasonable to assume that most people in the future with for go the desk top altogether. 60years into the future there will most likely be superior ways to interface with your computer rather than a mouse and keyboard.

you can just as easially say that 60 years into the future laptops will be obsolete in favor a tiny wristwatch that generates a holographic image of a desktop and all the interface you could ever want.

Suffice it to say, neither option would actually be more powerful than a desktop.

Desktops could easily die out, or more accurately, desktops could become indistinguishable from laptops. All that makes a computer a laptop is size, weight, shape, and self-containing power, input devices, and screen.
There's no reason to make a PC into a desktop shape. Desktop shapes are constantly evolving. A lightweight portable computer, with a flip out keyboard (that you can replace if you want), battery so you can use it when it's not plugged in, and either a flip out screen or a holo-display as described above. Boom, desktop/laptop.
The combination of advanced internal components and advanced cooling mean uber-powerful laptops.
Could a desktop be built to be even more uber-powerful at the cost of being too big to carry around? Yes, of course. But would it? That depends on how mobile people want to be. Having a desktop for home and a laptop for taking on the plane is only seen as a good purchase if the notebook isn't powerful enough to do what you need to do. And most people's needs will be modest enough that the laptops will do it for them (plus if they ever have to go on a trip, they can just take it with them. Now they might have a second keyboard or a bigger monitor they plug into the laptop (much like people do now), but most people would likely, when it comes to the actual computer, not need more than is available in laptop form.
And for those who do, some sort of add-on would likely be available. Something they could stick into the back to give it more memory and processing power than the laptop while also making it too clunky to just pick up and take with you on a trip unless you disconnect it from the add-on.

Edit: Of course, it's possible that laptops themselves might be too clunky. Wearable computers might be all the rage.

[Nekira Sudacne]

All depends on what people want and need. Right now the cost difference is too high to really say which will come into higher demand if the price evens out.

I will say this though: Even if the laptop becomes cheeper, desktops won't die out, simply because the keyboard and mouse being sepearte from the computer and monitor is far, far too useful as interface tools for the portable version to ever replace them.

I've had both, and I use the desktop. not because it's better, but because the interface is superior.

and no amount of increase in power or decrese in price will change the fact that laptops are freaking painful to use.

People are using laptops more and more these days. It is reasonable to assume that most people in the future with for go the desk top altogether. 60years into the future there will most likely be superior ways to interface with your computer rather than a mouse and keyboard.

you can just as easially say that 60 years into the future laptops will be obsolete in favor a tiny wristwatch that generates a holographic image of a desktop and all the interface you could ever want.

Suffice it to say, neither option would actually be more powerful than a desktop.

Desktops could easily die out, or more accurately, desktops could become indistinguishable from laptops. All that makes a computer a laptop is size, weight, shape, and self-containing power, input devices, and screen.
There's no reason to make a PC into a desktop shape. Desktop shapes are constantly evolving. A lightweight portable computer, with a flip out keyboard (that you can replace if you want), battery so you can use it when it's not plugged in, and either a flip out screen or a holo-display as described above. Boom, desktop/laptop.
The combination of advanced internal components and advanced cooling mean uber-powerful laptops.
Could a desktop be built to be even more uber-powerful at the cost of being too big to carry around? Yes, of course. But would it? That depends on how mobile people want to be. Having a desktop for home and a laptop for taking on the plane is only seen as a good purchase if the notebook isn't powerful enough to do what you need to do. And most people's needs will be modest enough that the laptops will do it for them (plus if they ever have to go on a trip, they can just take it with them. Now they might have a second keyboard or a bigger monitor they plug into the laptop (much like people do now), but most people would likely, when it comes to the actual computer, not need more than is available in laptop form.
And for those who do, some sort of add-on would likely be available. Something they could stick into the back to give it more memory and processing power than the laptop while also making it too clunky to just pick up and take with you on a trip unless you disconnect it from the add-on.

Edit: Of course, it's possible that laptops themselves might be too clunky. Wearable computers might be all the rage.

I think we're missing an even more important collary to this debate: How mobile people in the future WILL be, and how mobile they WANT to be. Someone who never leaves their house except to go to the store or somesuch would never have a need of a laptop or other mobile computing device. And someone who travels constantly for work and for whom "home" is simply the place they file their taxes from would have no real need for a desktop.

Few people fall into either extreem, but how mobile do people need to do computing that can't be done with PDA style cell phones?

Even nowadays, you can do e-mail and surf the web and download music on your Cell Phone. which is all a lot of people really do anyway. Arguably, such people don't even need computers of either stripe, simply more advanced PDA style devices.

[Overlord Rikonius]

All depends on what people want and need. Right now the cost difference is too high to really say which will come into higher demand if the price evens out.

I will say this though: Even if the laptop becomes cheeper, desktops won't die out, simply because the keyboard and mouse being sepearte from the computer and monitor is far, far too useful as interface tools for the portable version to ever replace them.

I've had both, and I use the desktop. not because it's better, but because the interface is superior.

and no amount of increase in power or decrese in price will change the fact that laptops are freaking painful to use.

People are using laptops more and more these days. It is reasonable to assume that most people in the future with for go the desk top altogether. 60years into the future there will most likely be superior ways to interface with your computer rather than a mouse and keyboard.

you can just as easially say that 60 years into the future laptops will be obsolete in favor a tiny wristwatch that generates a holographic image of a desktop and all the interface you could ever want.

Suffice it to say, neither option would actually be more powerful than a desktop.

Desktops could easily die out, or more accurately, desktops could become indistinguishable from laptops. All that makes a computer a laptop is size, weight, shape, and self-containing power, input devices, and screen.
There's no reason to make a PC into a desktop shape. Desktop shapes are constantly evolving. A lightweight portable computer, with a flip out keyboard (that you can replace if you want), battery so you can use it when it's not plugged in, and either a flip out screen or a holo-display as described above. Boom, desktop/laptop.
The combination of advanced internal components and advanced cooling mean uber-powerful laptops.
Could a desktop be built to be even more uber-powerful at the cost of being too big to carry around? Yes, of course. But would it? That depends on how mobile people want to be. Having a desktop for home and a laptop for taking on the plane is only seen as a good purchase if the notebook isn't powerful enough to do what you need to do. And most people's needs will be modest enough that the laptops will do it for them (plus if they ever have to go on a trip, they can just take it with them. Now they might have a second keyboard or a bigger monitor they plug into the laptop (much like people do now), but most people would likely, when it comes to the actual computer, not need more than is available in laptop form.
And for those who do, some sort of add-on would likely be available. Something they could stick into the back to give it more memory and processing power than the laptop while also making it too clunky to just pick up and take with you on a trip unless you disconnect it from the add-on.

Edit: Of course, it's possible that laptops themselves might be too clunky. Wearable computers might be all the rage.

I think we're missing an even more important collary to this debate: How mobile people in the future WILL be, and how mobile they WANT to be. Someone who never leaves their house except to go to the store or somesuch would never have a need of a laptop or other mobile computing device. And someone who travels constantly for work and for whom "home" is simply the place they file their taxes from would have no real need for a desktop.

Few people fall into either extreem, but how mobile do people need to do computing that can't be done with PDA style cell phones?

Even nowadays, you can do e-mail and surf the web and download music on your Cell Phone. which is all a lot of people really do anyway. Arguably, such people don't even need computers of either stripe, simply more advanced PDA style devices.

hence my edit. Wearable computers, more capable than even a desktop today, but it's either a Pip Boy style gauntlet, or a jacket that lets you do Minority Report style computing with a holo interface, or shades with stereo screen display and computing that you control with a neurofeedback control system, or something else along those lines.
Or multiconfigurable. Maybe your jacket is one power/display conduit (in concert with your sunglasses/control dock, and you have a "traditional desktop" style dock, and a "traditional laptop or PDA" style dock. The actual computer itself is the size of a pack of gum and easily transferable to whatever interface and infrastructure you want it to jack into.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Now that I think about it: in Rifts, by 2060 they had Cyberjack nural interfaces.

At that point, there would be no more need for external interface of any kind: None of it would be as fast or easy as just sliding the cabel from your head to the box and seeing it all in your mind.

[Library Ogre]

Now that I think about it: in Rifts, by 2060 they had Cyberjack nural interfaces.

At that point, there would be no more need for external interface of any kind: None of it would be as fast or easy as just sliding the cabel from your head to the box and seeing it all in your mind.

If you have neural interfaces. Not everyone is going to have the surgery.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Now that I think about it: in Rifts, by 2060 they had Cyberjack nural interfaces.

At that point, there would be no more need for external interface of any kind: None of it would be as fast or easy as just sliding the cabel from your head to the box and seeing it all in your mind.

If you have neural interfaces. Not everyone is going to have the surgery.

True.

[Crucible]

Wow, I thought about this as well. Would cyberspace cease to exist in the case of an apocalypse or would it lie dorment until linked again.

Yes and no. While individual systems may be protected enough to survive 300 years without maintenence, it's unlikely that any multiple-site network would.

Can you give me more to work with?

[Overlord Rikonius]

Now that I think about it: in Rifts, by 2060 they had Cyberjack nural interfaces.

At that point, there would be no more need for external interface of any kind: None of it would be as fast or easy as just sliding the cabel from your head to the box and seeing it all in your mind.

If you have neural interfaces. Not everyone is going to have the surgery.

True.

That's why the actual computer itself is just a small widget that can be hooked up to a headjack or up to a more manual interface.

[Library Ogre]

Wow, I thought about this as well. Would cyberspace cease to exist in the case of an apocalypse or would it lie dorment until linked again.

Yes and no. While individual systems may be protected enough to survive 300 years without maintenence, it's unlikely that any multiple-site network would.

Can you give me more to work with?

In other words, a network that exists entirely in one building MIGHT survive, so long as the building remained relatively intact. If the building got buried under the Yellowstone ash flow, for example, all of its cables and the like would still be intact, meaning that if you power the system, you can access everything on the network.
On the other hand, if that network connected to something a hundred miles away, it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to get to that... over the centuries, the hardlines would have degraded and the communications equipment on either end (the stuff exposed to weather) would've broken down.

For example, at the library I work at, there's a number of computers... 20-some public computers, 8 laptops, and 12-ish staff computers. If this place were buried by ash tonight, and not opened for 300 years, you'd find that the public computers have little individual data on them... they're mostly wiped clean after every shut-down. The staff computers would have more, but, again, none of them would be able to talk beyond these walls... we wouldn't even be able to use the public printers or copy machines, because they're linked to a server downtown, which was destroyed.

[Library Ogre]

(Based on German ways of doing it)

One of the networks that might actually survive is the one used by banks and stock exchanges. Even today they are multi-redundant both within each bank/exchange and in the cabeling. That means multiple computer centers that synchronise their data regularly and multiple landlines for data transfer.

The landlines used are often fibre optics and due to some encryption systems (Quantum Encryption, exists already) that work best/only with fibre optics will likely be completely fiber based when the world collapses. Fibres are either dug in around 150-200 cm (mostly next to a below-ground powerline) and put inside a protective sleeve or they are running along the top of high voltage above-ground powerlines.

And if we were talking about 50 or even 100 years, it'd be a little bit more believable. However, in most of North America, we're talking 300 years. Not just of natural disasters, but also of construction, combat, and other things. There may be isolated bits that are still intact, but fiber optics get cut, blown up, etc., especially since they'll be most concentrated in places rich in scavengeable materials.

[Overlord Rikonius]

(Based on German ways of doing it)

One of the networks that might actually survive is the one used by banks and stock exchanges. Even today they are multi-redundant both within each bank/exchange and in the cabeling. That means multiple computer centers that synchronise their data regularly and multiple landlines for data transfer.

The landlines used are often fibre optics and due to some encryption systems (Quantum Encryption, exists already) that work best/only with fibre optics will likely be completely fiber based when the world collapses. Fibres are either dug in around 150-200 cm (mostly next to a below-ground powerline) and put inside a protective sleeve or they are running along the top of high voltage above-ground powerlines.

And if we were talking about 50 or even 100 years, it'd be a little bit more believable. However, in most of North America, we're talking 300 years. Not just of natural disasters, but also of construction, combat, and other things. There may be isolated bits that are still intact, but fiber optics get cut, blown up, etc., especially since they'll be most concentrated in places rich in scavengeable materials.

And the fiber optics themselves would probably be scavengable too.