YAPCGIDT

[evident]

gizmodo

basically some dude from giz wrote that the desktop is dead because everyone can do everything fine on laptops. which to an extent is true, but there are many situations i think where the desktop can never be replaced by a laptop. goes on to say that pc gaming is dead because desktop sales are in decline as well.

i still think it's a waste of money to spend hundreds of dollars on a single use console that requires $50 controllers and other accessories and $60 games. i think some of his points are true, but he stretches the truth to an almost trollbait tone towards macbook pro's and xbox's.

 

[rivan]

I generally agree the desktop is dying - but I don't agree with his reasons.

For a very long time, huge increases in overall computer power was needed. Applications (not just games) were sluggish and sometimes unresponsive. Everyone with a computer would benefit from more RAM, more processor speed, more disk space.

Now, however, we're at a point where the average consumer may never, ever fill his hard disk. Not everyone's ripping blurays for network serving to their home theater. Not everyone downloads (and keeps on hard disk) all 14 seasons of MASH. Now, the average consumers needs are met or exceeded by the CPU, for video, for RAM and for disk space/speed.

So what's important to average consumers now? Convenience (read: portability) and being 'green' (read: energy efficiency).

Today's laptops sip power and are, in general, ok performers for the average consumer. The only place they really really lag is 3d gaming, which is a subset of the massive gaming industry today and often isn't a huge issue for a laptop buyer. Watching movies is the most graphically demanding task many laptops ever see.

There's also a shift in many businesses away from desktops where users aren't doing anything particularly demanding - MS Office does just fine on the weakest of new laptops and allow for greater productivity from those users who are on the move.

The desktop is losing relevance, and will eventually be a niche just like dedicated servers, mainframes, etc. They won't go away completely but over the next 10 years they're going to lose their dominance unless there's a major revolution in what they can offer.

 

[Dorkenstein]

Haha, various people have tried to "call this one" for years. Still hasn't totally happened yet. Flawed? Yes. Dead? Not quite.

 

[zerogear]

Gizmodo = Gawker = Not relevant.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: zerogear
Gizmodo = Gawker = Not relevant.

why

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: rivan
I generally agree the desktop is dying - but I don't agree with his reasons.

For a very long time, huge increases in overall computer power was needed. Applications (not just games) were sluggish and sometimes unresponsive. Everyone with a computer would benefit from more RAM, more processor speed, more disk space.

Now, however, we're at a point where the average consumer may never, ever fill his hard disk. Not everyone's ripping blurays for network serving to their home theater. Not everyone downloads (and keeps on hard disk) all 14 seasons of MASH. Now, the average consumers needs are met or exceeded by the CPU, for video, for RAM and for disk space/speed.

So what's important to average consumers now? Convenience (read: portability) and being 'green' (read: energy efficiency).

Today's laptops sip power and are, in general, ok performers for the average consumer. The only place they really really lag is 3d gaming, which is a subset of the massive gaming industry today and often isn't a huge issue for a laptop buyer. Watching movies is the most graphically demanding task many laptops ever see.

There's also a shift in many businesses away from desktops where users aren't doing anything particularly demanding - MS Office does just fine on the weakest of new laptops and allow for greater productivity from those users who are on the move.

The desktop is losing relevance, and will eventually be a niche just like dedicated servers, mainframes, etc. They won't go away completely but over the next 10 years they're going to lose their dominance unless there's a major revolution in what they can offer.

Well said.

 

[DannyLove]

desktop, laptop, who cares?

I will continue to build my pc desktops and can guarantee you there will be parts for me to use during my entire lifetime.

I'm tired of all these pc dead, console rules, mac vs pc, bla bla bla threads. They should be instantly locked. Especially in PC gaming forum

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: DannyLove
desktop, laptop, who cares?

I will continue to build my pc desktops and can guarantee you there will be parts for me to use during my entire lifetime.

I'm tired of all these pc dead, console rules, mac vs pc, bla bla bla threads. They should be instantly locked. Especially in PC gaming forum

this.

Originally posted by: zerogear
Gizmodo = Gawker = Not relevant.

Also this, though I do find something interesting in Lifehacker occasionally.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: rivan
There's also a shift in many businesses away from desktops where users aren't doing anything particularly demanding - MS Office does just fine on the weakest of new laptops and allow for greater productivity from those users who are on the move.

The desktop is losing relevance, and will eventually be a niche just like dedicated servers, mainframes, etc. They won't go away completely but over the next 10 years they're going to lose their dominance unless there's a major revolution in what they can offer.

I have a laptop and docking station at work. Office, Adobe Acrobat, and surfing through network resources work just fine on the T8600 dual core CPU I've got in there. It's amazing what kind of mobile computing power you can get for so little amount of money anymore.

 

[zerogear]

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: zerogear
Gizmodo = Gawker = Not relevant.

why

Because on several occasion, maybe more since I stopped following Gawker media completely, whenever they report something, they claim themselves as 'journalists' and call it articles. Whenever they make a mistake, or are proven that they made a mistake, they go 'hey, we're just bloggers' making a post.

No integrity what so ever, so I don't see them as a valid source of information whatsoever. Also, have you seen the way they write posts? Some of the grammar is so bad that I have to read it multiple times just to fully understand it.

 

[nitromullet]

I definitely don't doubt that desktop sales are down. We completely transitioned my wife from desktop to laptop on her last upgrade, and she hasn't ever once lamented the loss of her tower. It was pretty much a no brainer when I found out that she was just using my Mac laptop to access her PC via remote desktop from the couch. I still have my desktop which I enjoy using the most for work and play, but have a laptop for surfing from the couch and traveling as well as an Xbox 360.

I find it interesting though how the Giz article extrapolates a decline in PC gaming from a reduction in overall PC sales. IMO, a better metric to look at in terms of sales (aside from retail and digitally distributed game sales) would be discrete graphics card sales or PCs equipped with them. Without the graphics card differentiator, a PC and laptop have about the equivalent capabilities for playing 'casual' or non-graphically intensive games. Whereas the PCs with video cards are more comparable to consoles. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I don't think discrete graphics card sales and gaming PCs overall have been in decline.

John Peddie also disagrees with Giz. http://www.jonpeddie.com/speci...arket-TOC-Exec-sum.pdf (skip to the last page)