Do you think PCs will become obsolete in near future ? [Archive]

ajgreeny

November 25th, 2015, 09:38 PM

A tablet is fine for entertainment; watching videos, listening to music, (with good headphones), etc etc, but try doing a lot of desktop publication, photo, or video and music editing using a tablet and you would soon find that it is just not the same thing at all as a "proper" computer.

Even using a tablet for relatively simple editing of written material is painfully slow and tedious in my opinion; I still have not figured out how to do a cut and paste job on a tablet in an easy way as you can in a word processor or DTP application.

Sorry, but a table just does not work very well for that type of activity.

Copper Bezel

November 25th, 2015, 10:39 PM

Traditional desktops are very likely to continue shrinking in applications as better task-suited devices take over more of their roles. I do think convertible tablets are going to continue to cut into laptops for a lot of applications, too. But I think as long as we have tasks designed for sitting at computers doing them, we're going to continue to have computers designed for that, too.

Gaming or ownership of your data I don't see as major long-term forces. Storage and data ownership mainly because the soft sell of the cloud is going to continue to chip away at those niches until they become impractical for the diehards left in them; the more broadband we have everywhere, the more this incomparable appeal of having access to all your files on whatever device you're using takes over for some deep need to know where those files are actually being stored and have that version of control over them.

Gaming because gaming is changing fast itself. Gaming consoles are still taking up the spot for the living-room PC, and the clock is ticking on them for being the best or most convenient way of delivering their core application of gaming, while set-top boxes and smart TVs are offering a subset of that living room computer functionality and waiting to bloom when consoles do die or be killed off themselves by the replacement. I really do think there's going to be a boxed solution at some point and that we haven't seen it yet, and it's not (yet) taking the form of a Windows or Mac PC just plugged into the television set with a 10-foot interface (like, even Xbox isn't fully a member of the Windows 10 convergence family). But I really think that games are going to stop being one of the things pushing bleeding edge hardware in the process of all that change. Hell, right now, bandwidth is already a more prohibitive cost on gaming in most situations than local hardware is.

It's hard for me to imagine that anything that qualifies as a "desk job" right now isn't going to continue being best facilitated by large displays, comfortable keyboards, and relative pointing devices. Those jobs and those computers have been designed around each other in the last thirty years. There's no benefit to putting a tablet in a dock and calling it a workstation. The benefit is taking the "computer" out of the "desktop" completely - making the workstation a thin client with a VM in the server room, or an outsourced server farm, that the tablet can also access on a business trip. Which I guess is a little like the death of desktop PCs, except that most of the people using them will literally not know the difference.

Keyboard, mouse, big screen, interfaces that fully utilize them? Those are going to last for a very, very long time. Intel architecture? Eh, they're either going to fix it or everything's going to go to ARM, but convergence will happen and the software division will cease to exist. Little boxes that you plug everything into to make go? Probably going to look more and more like the Mac Mini with time, but we're still going to need sedentary computing devices of some kind we can leave around.

khelben1979

November 25th, 2015, 11:06 PM

I think the defintion of a PC will change a lot. What defines a PC in the future? People using desktop computers will for a very long time continue on in the workplaces. At home however, the amount of people using desktop pc:s will shrink, but I have a very hard time thinking they will totally disappear for the near 20 years to come. No doubt the amount of desktop PC users will also shrink, because of several reasons.

I really don't like tablets, and I have no current or future plans to buy one. I haven't touched one yet, but I suspect I won't be able to protect myself from that one (perhaps). Laptops on the other hand has been and will continue to replace my previous desktop computers. What I enjoy the most is the low power compared to previous desktops, and that's the main reason I've actually purchased a new one this summer, hoping it will serve my needs for at least the coming 10 years to come (or more?). So that's me...

Desktop PC:s in peoples homes will become a rare sight in the future, and that's very easy to predict. I'm guessing that this has already happened, to some extent.

lisati

November 25th, 2015, 11:22 PM

It could depend on what you mean by PC, whether it's "personal computer", "politically correct", or something else ..... :D

I haven't regularly used a desktop for at least a year now, and normally use a laptop, occasionally a tablet, and sometimes even one of my phones. For various reasons, none of the desktops I currently have gathering dust at home are in a usable state.

When I get the time and $$$ I might consider purchasing a new desktop, assuming something that would meet my needs is available.

Copper Bezel

November 25th, 2015, 11:32 PM

khelben1979 - Definitely. Entertainment, education, social, those niches are being filled by other kinds of devices, both in houses that previously did have and houses that previously did not have desktop PCs.

buzzingrobot

November 26th, 2015, 12:30 AM

The need, or preference, for large displays isn't going away. The hardware connected to those displays is bound to change. PC architecture hasn't changed much since the 386's first appeared a long time ago.

The fact that so many of us can so successfully migrate our computing from a desktop or a laptop PC to the more limited architecture of a phone or tablet just shows we weren't using our PC's for anything beyond simple communications, entertainment and internet browsing. Those barely qualify as computing activities.

kurt18947

November 26th, 2015, 12:49 AM

Real keyboards and Real pointing devices are likely to have a place for some time to come. The classic tower PC will likely transform into something more along the line of ITX or Intel NUC type boxes. I wonder if the reason people think desktop machines are dying is because they're not selling like they were. They could also not be selling because most machines sold in the past 8 years or more don't need to be replaced except due to mechanical or electrical failure. Just because they're not selling doesn't mean they're not being used. I would not look forward to writing a 50 page report or proposal on a laptop let alone a tablet unless the laptop were in a dock with at least 1 24"+ monitor, full size keyboard and good pointing device.

Copper Bezel

November 26th, 2015, 01:07 AM

Oh gosh no, the limiting factors for typing large documents are just comfortable keyboards and competent editing software. Wanting a controlled desk with a big display for writing a large document is no different from wanting a small screen and portability to wander around a house or coffee shop - it's not a mechanical requirement of the task, it's a matter of taste. Writing and editing are literally one of the simplest use cases a system can provide for.

The fact that so many of us can so successfully migrate our computing from a desktop or a laptop PC to the more limited architecture of a phone or tablet just shows we weren't using our PC's for anything beyond simple communications, entertainment and internet browsing. Those barely qualify as computing activities.
On the contrary, I think they've proven themselves to be the most common computing tasks people have and the things that put even desktop computers in a lot of homes and hands. Anything else has always been a niche subset.

mikodo

November 26th, 2015, 01:29 AM

LOL!

No.

I just had a thought of hundreds of people at work all trying to work on smart-phones. Made me smile. The goofiness I witness now that has been written and produced with comfortable work-stations, would be hilariously exponentially increased. It would all be stuff that no one could understand:

DIKU? BQ! WWWY? DK! WBU? MEH ...

SNN? DUNNO!

MKAY

JTUSK

MHMM

IIGHT!

:-\"

Sweet_Baby_Jamie

November 26th, 2015, 11:12 AM

As long as kids go to school they will need some kind of device that is used for more than selfies, texting, and social networking. I like my desktop better than my laptop, because it has a bigger screen, there's less danger of theft, getting it soaked in a sudden rainstorm, or dropping and breaking it. When I get home from school the first thing I do is transfer school work from the laptop to the desktop PC because it's alot easier to work on from the larger screen and keyboard, and it's safe from hazards.

buzzingrobot

November 26th, 2015, 12:26 PM

On the contrary, I think they've proven themselves to be the most common computing tasks people have and the things that put even desktop computers in a lot of homes and hands. Anything else has always been a niche subset.

Yes, they are the most common tasks. That's the point. People didn't buy desktops or laptops to do serious computing at home. They have nothing to compute. They bought them as simple communication and entertainment tools. When a cheaper and more convenient to do that comes along -- phones and tablets -- it's natural for people to use those and pack the old desktop in the closet. Why be tied to a desk or a 5-pound laptop when all you really do is watch video, listen to music, Facebook, mail, etc.

People who need to do actual computing will need the hardware appropriate to those needs. If that's a desktop PC with 64 gigs of RAM, the latest Intel CPU, and a 32-inch 4k display, then that's what they will buy.

People will use the tool most appropriate for the task at hand. Until recently, the PC was the *only* tool at hand. Now it isn't.

The internal architecture of every PC made in the last 20 years is pretty much the same. Since Apple ported OS X to Intel, that includes Macs. Sooner or later we're going to see new hardware capabilities force the redesign of that standardized architecture, and that will force software rewrites to accommodate it, if the conservative drag of the Windows/OS X/Linux markets dependent on the current architicture can be overcome.

Copper Bezel

November 26th, 2015, 01:11 PM

That's happening now though. I mean, it has happened. Windows 10 runs happily on ARM.

"Actual computing" is still a nonexistent category. You wouldn't talk about "actual electricity users" and exclude lighting, refrigeration, and HVAC. But there will come a time that even for very computationally intensive tasks (right now, gaming is both "entertainment" and often highly computationally intensive, but that's beside the point) it will be easier, cheaper, and simply better to buy cycles from a server farm somewhere than to buy local hardware. Not "directly", for most cases for most consumers, but by purchasing this or that particular app that resides mostly serverside, etc. Local machine computing power can only matter less with time.

buzzingrobot

November 26th, 2015, 01:53 PM

This seems to me a debate largely without meaning. It's the kind of pseudo-issue our (attrocious) tech media manufacture to draw clicks

Most of the things most people have done at home with PC's can be done more conveniently on phones and tablets. So that's what we use.

Tasks that can't be done conveniently on a phone or a tablet, if at all, will continue to be done elsewhere.

Personally, I don't want to do things like write on a phone, or post-process dozens of 100-meg photo files poking around on dumbed down tablet software. Nor do I want to lug my laptop to the grocery just to look at my grocery list.

pqwoerituytrueiwoq

November 26th, 2015, 02:16 PM

The only people who ask this question do not understand that computers are more than a web browser that view a stripped down version of websites
getting me to use a phone inplace of a desktop is like expecting my to downgrade to a Pentium 4
now i want you to look at this comparison and tell me why i would want to deal with something that is about 21.5 times slower
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1074&cmp[]=2284

Copper Bezel

November 26th, 2015, 02:37 PM

What exactly are you using your computer for? I don't mean that as a general "what do people use computers for," but you, personally?

y6FgBn)~v

November 26th, 2015, 03:02 PM

No.

Kick Monkey Kick :p:

portalhavoc

November 26th, 2015, 09:02 PM

I don't think so. Besides. I use a phone, a tablet and a gaming computer on a daily basis.
http://phasehacker.blogspot.com/2015/11/its-time-to-go-open-source.html'
(And for all of you who still have an OS named after glass panes that you put on a house.) It's to go open!

lisati

November 26th, 2015, 09:15 PM

Personally, I don't want to do things like write on a phone, or post-process dozens of 100-meg photo files poking around on dumbed down tablet software. Nor do I want to lug my laptop to the grocery just to look at my grocery list.

True. I bought my phones mainly as communication tools (mainly phone calls and the occasional text message); some of the available apps, e.g. calendar or banking, are a bonus. The production of DVDs I sometimes do for the in-laws is more easily done on a laptop or desktop.

monkeybrain20122

November 26th, 2015, 09:25 PM

I use my phone to call people, it costs me 50CAD. Why do I want to spend CAD300+ on a phone(I don't want a contract) while my refurb core i5 laptop with 8 G ram costs CAD 350? A smart phone is useless without a data plan but data plans are real expensive here. I can afford a phone, but I think the money can be better spent. Since I work on the laptop all day I don't want to go online and stare at a screen when I am not working.

Never see the point of a tablet. If I want portability I get a phone, if I want power I get a labtop.

Never own a desktop, takes too much space and not convenient to move around. Though I saw a guy who actually brought his tower and a monitor to Tim Horton's to use the wifi.

Copper Bezel

November 26th, 2015, 09:36 PM

You can't very well expect to play the DVD using a typical tablet, either. Let's bear in mind that a quick glance at something is almost always going to overestimate short-term change and underestimate long-term. I'd say with a fair bit of certainty that the ubiquity of desktop computers will outlive the wide use of DVD and Blu-Ray storage media. There are a lot of applications or tasks that are only served by desktop computers right now, things that this class of device has perfectly covered. Twenty years from now, I think they're going to be as relevant as CRTs. But a lot of little things (and honestly, a lot of big things) are going to change in between to make that happen. Both changes in how we do particular kinds of tasks and, yeah, what kinds of tasks we actually want to make done.

lisati

November 26th, 2015, 09:38 PM

I use my phone to call people, it costs me 50CAD. Why do I want to spend CAD300+ on a phone(I don't want a contract) while my refurb core i5 laptop with 8 G ram costs CAD 350?
Exactly. Why should I spend $1000+ on a phone when I can get a handset that makes calls for under $100 (I've seen some advertised recently for $NZ29 and less) and use the rest of the money on other hardware that is better suited to other needs that I might have?

Old_Grey_Wolf

November 26th, 2015, 09:39 PM

I hope not. I don't think a tablet would work for me. I am old and my hands are a little shaky so I really need a keyboard and mouse. I know that some tablets do have keyboards now. I also like to use VMs and do video editing. I don't think a tablet can run 3 VMs and a host OS at the same time very well, if at all. I think I will stay with my server (old quad-core desktop), laptop, and notebook for as long as I can. Even my laptop can run 3 VMs quite well.

Old_Grey_Wolf

November 26th, 2015, 09:51 PM

Exactly. Why should I spend $1000+ on a phone when I can get a handset that makes calls for under $100 (I've seen some advertised recently for $NZ29 and less) and use the rest of the money on other hardware that is better suited to other needs that I might have?

I agree. I have a phone plan that is $US30 a month that does calls and texts. It was $US20 but I had to upgrande plans because my kids don't know how to do anything but text messages. :)

And the phone has a real keyboard.

poorguy

November 27th, 2015, 02:41 AM

most gamers build their game towers and a gamer is going to have a lot of hardware that produces lots of heat so therefore a large desktop case with lots of large cooling fans is the only way to go. my flight simulator game tower has a 200mm fan on the top of the case for cooling and a 1000 watt power supply. lots space needed for the hardware i have. large cases provide lots of room for air flow for cooling. laptops always run hot and they also are not meant to be run 24/7 where a desktop can. desktops will always be around for people like me and i like my 24 inch monitor.

i use my laptop at work as it can go where i go. sure can't drag a desktop with me everywhere. have a small tablet i also carry just for when i need some quick internet things done. phones are sure getting larger and more capable so i can see them and tablets take the market away from the laptop. desktops will always be around just like the double action revolver can't give up a proven performer.

just my own opinion.

life is good.
the poorguy

user1397

November 27th, 2015, 04:43 AM

In the short term definitely not, because of the gaming market, the professional workstation, and a few other niches.

Maybe in the far future they will be obsolete, but it is impossible to predict anything in the far future with any certainty of course.

I personally enjoy doing my computing on a desktop the most. The reason I don't have one is cost. I need a laptop because I need to take it to work and if I need to travel anywhere I can easily bring it with me. But I can't afford a laptop and a desktop, so alas a laptop it is.

If I had unlimited money, I'd have a really nice desktop, and a really nice laptop, and possibly a tablet, and of course a smartphone :)

QIII

November 27th, 2015, 06:07 AM

If either

1. ARM gets powerful enough and stays cool + graphics chips get small and stay cool

or

2. x86 gets small enough and stays cool + graphics chips get small and stay cool

this is the future I see for desktops:

265791

mystics

November 27th, 2015, 06:54 AM

I think that it is more likely the future will just see tablets being used by more and more people who realize that their day-to-day tasks can be done very well on small, portable devices. Anyone who only uses their computer for web browsing, reading, and light gaming is likely going to find everything they need on a tablet. And since a good tablet will go for less than a good laptop, going the tablet route for these people is great. We're also likely going to see the line blur more between PCs (at least laptops) and tablets. While I personally think most 2-in-1 devices seriously miss the mark by only allowing users to flip back the screen (it is bulky, so not good as a tablet, and awkward due to the keyboard on the back), some devices like the Surface Pro, Surface Book, and Sony Canvas are starting to show just how much potential there is in hybrid devices. Even Apple, who mocked them a few years ago, has mostly presented the new iPad Pro as a tablet-focused hybrid device. At the same time, Microsoft, who for the last few years thought a tablet could replace a laptop, made a more laptop-focused hybrid device.

Overall, both tablets and PCs have their place, and some companies are even seeing some benefit of trying to get both a good laptop and good tablet together into one device. As a result, I doubt PCs, even pure non-hybrid ones, are unlikely to go away anytime soon, but I do imagine that what is defined as a PC will see at least minor changes over the next few years.

flocculant

November 27th, 2015, 08:34 AM

rexrino

November 27th, 2015, 08:53 AM

I think the idea of a "Work Station" includes Desktop computers. On my station I have a Kindle, 10" Tablet and four Raspberry Pi's along with my Desktop computer. I always end up gravitating towards the Desktop computer because I can attach to the other devices so easily. Also, It's hard to beat the mouse/keyboard combo.

Copper Bezel

November 27th, 2015, 06:25 PM

true gamer
Oh boy.

In reality, that segment of game consumers is only going to become more difficult to define going forward.

poorguy

November 27th, 2015, 07:11 PM

Oh boy.

In reality, that segment of game consumers is only going to become more difficult to define going forward.

i personally am not even a gamer as i only run [flight simulator x] and [x plane] and i don't consider them as games.
i know several gamers and i have built enough game computers for them and they live to play games. they always buy the lastest version of whatever games they are into. they spend lots of money on the latest graphics hardware when it is released which is how i have the game tower i have which is put together from their discards. no complaints from me at all as i bank.

Copper Bezel

November 27th, 2015, 07:37 PM

... Yes, that is the stereotypical construct to which we are referring. Insofar as there are people who can realistically be categorized as such, it's a dying breed. There's also a split between PC and console gamers within that category, which is notable if you're trying to posit them as a driving force in the PC hardware consumer base (but of course, as I've already mentioned, consoles will not outlive them, so that's of limited significance in the longer term.)

It'd be much better to talk about "serious" "traditional gamers", but even so, I don't see them as likely to be a serious hold-out consumer base for traditional desktop PCs. There are other, much larger segments that require that kind of hardware, and most of those are corporate or institutional consumers. In the meantime, home PCs are under less pressure to improve raw power every cycle, and gaming has followed the trend precisely because that group of consumers isn't enough a force on the industry to do otherwise. "Building your own rig" or not, you're still limited to the kinds of boards that are available to mass markets.

You can't, as a developer, write games for hardware that doesn't exist, either, and as more people get into gaming, playing with the hardware they already have, there's an incentive to lower that bar. Right now, gaming is only becoming more popular, and it's becoming popular specifically with people who want to use the hardware they already have, whether that's a laptop PC with Steam or a frelling iPad.

So, yeah, I'd say the "gaming rig" will be obsolete long before things recognizable as desktop PCs will.

poorguy

November 27th, 2015, 08:11 PM

(http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1228996)Copper Bezel posted
So, yeah, I'd say the "gaming rig" will be obsolete long before things recognizable as desktop PCs will.

i disagree.

Copper Bezel

November 28th, 2015, 12:47 AM

An HTPC is another thing entirely. And doesn't push up on any hardware limitations to speak of. If anything, I think HTPCs are due for a turn to become more popular.

But you're talking about gaming pushing the upper limit of home computing power and then pointing out that you can also use a high power gaming rig as an HTPC. Well, yes, along with any computing device from tablets to game consoles that meets the base requirements for putting moving pictures on a screen, but that has nothing to do with why a person goes out and buys a crazy fast high end PC in the first place, or the fact that those use cases are shrinking fast.

benrob0329

November 28th, 2015, 02:04 AM

As far as anything that requires real horsepower, nothing but a desktop will suffice. I struggle with things like Blender and video editing on my (half broken) laptop.

poorguy

November 28th, 2015, 03:31 AM

better.

Copper Bezel

November 28th, 2015, 04:39 AM

That sure is a restatement of something you've previously said in the thread.

bapoumba

November 28th, 2015, 05:01 AM

I have a desktop at work, because I have a desk, and a laptop that does everything I need. I owned a tablet for a while but got quite frustrated with it, not sure I'm the right public for that. This is a very light laptop, easy to travel with, most of the applications I need to use do not have their counterparts on tablets.

As usual, the question is about usage. Use what suits you, technology is now able to adjust to needs, and even creates needs :)

stephen91

November 28th, 2015, 09:54 PM

As technology evolves so will the form factor of the PC.

The question that needs to be answered is what exactly is a PC? Is it a configuration that uses a display, keyboard, and mouse and runs an Operating System to perform computing functions? Tablets and smartphones share many of these characteristics.

Only time will answer this question.

TenPlus1

November 29th, 2015, 04:49 AM

Copper Bezel

November 29th, 2015, 05:13 AM

That assumes that the computer itself is the expensive part of the device that you need to move around and that contains all your data. I don't think the first part (the board is the expensive bit of the device) is true now or likely to become any more true, and I don't think the second part (you carry around the data with you) is going to bear out. It's far more likely that your home computer, work computer, phone, TV, laptop / tablet, etc. will all be relatively light devices with most of their storage in the cloud, all with their own little SOCs and storage. Because ultimately, that's going to be 1) the cheaper route, because phones don't need to process as much as tablets or tablets as much as desktops do, so you don't need one super-miniaturized board that can fit all the use cases; 2) the more convenient route, because it's plug-free; and 3) the more practical route, because getting apps in the cloud to talk to one another will be an ongoing and painful hassle, but it'll never be as hard as trying to standardize all your little device docks or introduce quite as many awkward incompatibilities.

flocculant

November 29th, 2015, 09:42 AM

With more people owning and using mobile phones, soon you will simply dock your phone into a tablet sized screen for home use, or a desktop cradle to turn into a full computer with keyboard... Ubuntu Touch will rock in all of these platforms and with high spec mobile devices on the market there will be nothing you can't do with it :)

How about Tb's of media - will your phone be ok with that? Will you be able to serve media out to the rest of the home? While your phone is doing all these things - will you still be able to do what you should be able to do with it - talk to someone?

These phones might be useful - but they are far from being a panacea for all the computing woes in the world.

Daniel_Duy

November 29th, 2015, 03:12 PM

I think the desktop is better in dealing with complex programs, require high graphics. But using the laptop and the tablet is more convenient when you go travelling or move a lot.
So the Pcs will not become obsolete in near future.

Copper Bezel

November 29th, 2015, 07:19 PM

How about Tb's of media - will your phone be ok with that? Will you be able to serve media out to the rest of the home? While your phone is doing all these things - will you still be able to do what you should be able to do with it - talk to someone?

These phones might be useful - but they are far from being a panacea for all the computing woes in the world.
I'm still astounded that people actually talk to their phones. It's very strange to me. Bluetooth headsets are very nearly the ideal interface for the actual task of talking and listening to a phone call. Cell phones themselves got a lot less ergonomic in the switch to smartphones. I don't know why we don't see more effort put into bluetooth devices.

Like, if you look at a landline wireless telephone, we call the handset a "phone", not the base station. The smartphone is of course "really" a mobile computer, and we call it a "phone" to indicate that it has a cellular connection. But in that arrangement, I'd think of my headset as my "phone" more than I'd think of the app that runs it as a "phone".

mikodo

November 29th, 2015, 11:02 PM

I am not going to try encapsulate a consensus nor divergent view points. I haven't paid enough attention to, know what they are.

But for now; No, I don't see anything written here, that points to an affirmation to the OP question.

Seems, people believe more and more of our data will be, "in the cloud". Apps even. That makes me wonder about our privacy and data security.

Strange how, I am becoming more and more reclusive in my privacy and security measures as, it seems we are rushing to more openness in the cloud.

It will interesting to see what solutions are developed to safe-guard our privacy and the security of our data. As usual, I expect to see Unix/Linux leading in that front.

For now, I enjoy having my data on my hardware. I guess that will change for me as, things evolve. If, I live long enough. I don't see that happening any time soon.

carry on ...

Irihapeti

November 29th, 2015, 11:12 PM

I'm astounded at the number of people who are astounded at something that doesn't match their experience. :)

The world is a very diverse place, and not everyone has the things that we take for granted (or even wants them, in some cases).

Copper Bezel

November 29th, 2015, 11:59 PM

Seems, people believe more and more of our data will be, "in the cloud". Apps even. That makes me wonder about our privacy and data security.
Of course it does. It probably should. Users are undeniably giving up a particular notion of data privacy to make use of these services. And those users continue to do so. The real, tangible benefits of using these services consistently win people over, and at the moment, things only ratchet one way. The ever-smaller chance of someone else intercepting their data, for instance, is hard to weigh against the protection from the much larger chance of data loss due to local hardware failure, or the practical limitations of data that can only be accessed in one place. Search engines and whole interfaces that learn how users actually use them, or store custom tweaks and adjustments device-agnostically, save real time for a difficult-to-quantify or even ephemeral cost. The smartest and best software services are going to continue to be available only to people with a flexible sense of "privacy", and those people will simply continue to have "better" devices and services than you do in most practical purposes. If that's a bad thing, fine; it is a thing that is happening either way.

It will interesting to see what solutions are developed to safe-guard our privacy and the security of our data. As usual, I expect to see Unix/Linux leading in that front.
It's hard to lead the way to nowhere new. The task of protecting privacy is largely going to fall on the software and devices that are actually leading the way - I mean, the actual leading systems - and shaping the internet ecosystem. Small right decisions by Google protect more privacy for more people than the most dire protections you can build into a particular niche Linux distribution.

Ubuntu, if anything, has been leading the way in making better use of its internal tracking. The search and launch is still better and smarter than Microsoft's, and Windows doesn't have any equivalent to the HUD. But that bit with accidentally exposing your IP to Amazon on the backside when generating content from desktop searches (which were otherwise shielded in Ubuntu's servers - if you, y'know, trust them more for some reason) - that was definitely not what I'd call leading the way in security.

monkeybrain20122

November 30th, 2015, 08:06 AM

Copper Bezel

November 30th, 2015, 08:55 PM

Oh, I know. The prevalence of cloud-based software can only move at the speed of broadband access penetration.

night_sky2

November 30th, 2015, 09:54 PM

THe cloud is a blessing to Linux. THat's how we will be able to use ANY software and games we want without discrimination. The cloud is OS agnostic.

There are some big privacy concerns but the benefits are hard to overlook.

night_sky2

November 30th, 2015, 09:57 PM

Besides privacy and security concerns another problem with cloud is unreliable/slow internet connection. Many of us share wifi, for example. If everyone goes on cloud to access big files the thing will soon become unusable.
Internet connections are becoming faster and more reliable. I think that can only improve. Besides, many cloud apps can in fact be accessed offline.

Copper Bezel

November 30th, 2015, 10:19 PM

"Cloud apps that you access offline" only sounds like a contradiction in terms in most situations, but in this case, it actually is. If all the processing is happening locally, then it doesn't change anything about what your device needs to be able to do. It's just a local application that happens to be coded in HTML and run in a browser window, or a local app with cloud features that don't always have to be turned on. That makes it easier for people to make use of those services if they don't have a consistent internet connection, and then use the cloud features when available, so there are a lot of practical benefits, but it doesn't bear on the question of how much you're actually doing locally, because in that case, you're still doing everything locally, and you have to keep the app working that way if a reasonable percentage of users are using it that way.

THe cloud is a blessing to Linux. THat's how we will be able to use ANY software and games we want without discrimination. The cloud is OS agnostic.

There are some big privacy concerns but the benefits are hard to overlook.
Couple of points of clarification here.

First, "cloud" does not always mean "web-based". There are local apps that have serverside features, and they're not OS agnostic, even if the majority of the application is really running elsewhere. Mobile apps are very commonly structured this way.

Second, if all software ran serverside through a browser, then the operating system would be purely a tool for running browsers. That's how Chromebook works, of course, with applications that work from a server and some of which cache, but all run through the browser's renderer. It doesn't matter much what operating system you're using at that point. That's not a "win" for any operating system - you're no longer even running your software on your own operating system, which is just there to manage your hardware and draw browser windows. (It might actually be good for users, but.)

mystics

November 30th, 2015, 11:53 PM

Like, if you look at a landline wireless telephone, we call the handset a "phone", not the base station. The smartphone is of course "really" a mobile computer, and we call it a "phone" to indicate that it has a cellular connection. But in that arrangement, I'd think of my headset as my "phone" more than I'd think of the app that runs it as a "phone".

It's essentially just a very advanced cellphone. Just now, instead of using cellular data to only make calls, it can use that data to do a lot more. Even old (i.e. pre-smartphone) cellphones would occasionally have simple games and tools on them that were basically very simple versions of what smartphones can get today. So given where the smartphone came from and given how it still relies on cellular data (though less so as some phones and apps are using WiFi for cellular tasks now), it doesn't surprise me that it is called a phone.

THe cloud is a blessing to Linux. THat's how we will be able to use ANY software and games we want without discrimination. The cloud is OS agnostic.

There are some big privacy concerns but the benefits are hard to overlook.

The cloud is not inherently OS agnostic. It tends to be designed that way, but it is possible for a company to choose to lock out certain OSs from accessing its cloud. One example is Apple and their iCloud. Unless something has changed in the last few weeks, iCloud is designed in such a way as to only be accessible to Windows and Apple users. Linux users that also have OS X or iOS and use iCloud are completely cut off from their iCloud stuff while on Linux. Even with Chrome, there's still the occasional app that is designed in such a way as to only work with Chrome OS, generally because it is dealing very specifically with Chrome OS features and settings.

In short, just because companies like Google approach the cloud as a way to push apps and storage to everyone regardless of OS, there are still ways to design, either by necessity or by choice, everything in such a way as to control where the service can be used. As a result, the cloud is not a perfect solution to stop highly-controlling companies like Apple. It is just that some of the big names in the business (e.g. Google, Microsoft) currently see it as a way to open up to varying degrees.

Copper Bezel

December 1st, 2015, 12:03 AM

Yes, that's a much more accurate assessment. The only legal way to run MS Office on my Ubuntu machine is through Office 360. That's using cloud apps as an OS-agnostic distribution platform. Or, another would be Google Hangouts, now that it's metamorphosed into a direct competitor for Skype - the application I'm running and the application my Windows friends are running are the same code, which is not true of Skype's locally installed binaries.

And yeah, I understand the semantic slip and slide that got us to calling smartphones phones (instead of calling them, say, PDAs, which is another thing that they're a very advanced version of.) I just can't help but think the historical accident has something to do with the expectation that a smartphone must always be able to function as a handset without any other kit involved.

yoshii

December 1st, 2015, 02:26 AM

The more people realise the problems of so-called "cloud" computing and the undesirable issues that come with it, the more there will be a continued usage of PC's.

night_sky2

December 1st, 2015, 07:09 AM

The cloud is not inherently OS agnostic. It tends to be designed that way, but it is possible for a company to choose to lock out certain OSs from accessing its cloud. One example is Apple and their iCloud. Unless something has changed in the last few weeks, iCloud is designed in such a way as to only be accessible to Windows and Apple users. Linux users that also have OS X or iOS and use iCloud are completely cut off from their iCloud stuff while on Linux. Even with Chrome, there's still the occasional app that is designed in such a way as to only work with Chrome OS, generally because it is dealing very specifically with Chrome OS features and settings.
You can access iCloud with a web browser on any OS. Apple no longer discriminate. Web apps are agnostic in the sense that they are runned through a modern browser as the platform. Developpers no longer need to maintain a software for each different Oses (where Linux is often disregarded). The app is runned fully in the cloud, accessed with a web browser.

I don't doubt that at some point in the future we will be able to run something like Adobe Photoshop as a powerful web app on Linux, that will be as good as a desktop software.

night_sky2

December 1st, 2015, 07:27 AM

Yes, that's a much more accurate assessment. The only legal way to run MS Office on my Ubuntu machine is through Office 360.
You can use Office Online by Microsoft in Onedrive, free of charge. Pretty much like Google doc.

Office 365 is the paid, business-oriented cloud version, with more features.

That's using cloud apps as an OS-agnostic distribution platform. Or, another would be Google Hangouts, now that it's metamorphosed into a direct competitor for Skype - the application I'm running and the application my Windows friends are running are the same code, which is not true of Skype's locally installed binaries.
Soon Linux users will be able to access Skype as a Web app. All that will be required is a modern browser with WebRTC enabled.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/06/15/skype-for-web-is-now-available-worldwide-adds-chromebook-support/

Copper Bezel

December 1st, 2015, 08:24 AM

Ah, I see. I'd only ever played with Microsoft's online version of Office through a trial subscription to 365. I do, perhaps regrettably, use Docs for most things and Libreoffice for a few.

Skype for web is ... well, that's good for them, isn't it? But now I've gone and lost my biggest excuse to avoid the damn thing. It's not as if I don't have Skype installed on my Ubuntu laptop and my Android tablet already, but now I'm going to have to actually, like, almost unbegrudgingly use it, or something. I've just now removed the local app and replaced it with the webapp on my dock. I love that Microsoft does this thing where their webapps look like their mobile apps - the design actually is, I hate to accept, cleaner and more attractive than Google's, though generally a little less readable.

The more people realise the problems of so-called "cloud" computing and the undesirable issues that come with it, the more there will be a continued usage of PC's.
Right, brilliant, because humanity will band together and decide that the ability to take a photo, post-process it on the desktop, and later post it to Facebook from their phone in response to a message without ever taking the conscious action to save or open a file, let alone move it, is entirely too much convenience and clearly detrimental to our lives. Meanwhile all the developers will realize how terribly wrong they were about software as a service and go back to selling iterative improvements of software at new prices with easy-to-crack DRM in cardboard boxes at the department store.

mikodo

December 1st, 2015, 08:33 AM

You can access iCloud with a web browser on any OS. Apple no longer discriminate. Web apps are agnostic in the sense that they are runned through a modern browser as the platform. Developpers no longer need to maintain a software for each different Oses (where Linux is often disregarded). The app is runned fully in the cloud, accessed with a web browser.

I don't doubt that at some point in the future we will be able to run something like Adobe Photoshop as a powerful web app on Linux, that will be as good as a desktop software.

You can use Office Online by Microsoft in Onedrive, free of charge. Pretty much like Google doc.

Office 365 is the paid, business-oriented cloud version, with more features.

Soon Linux users will be able to access Skype as a Web app. All that will be required is a modern browser with WebRTC enabled.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/06/15/skype-for-web-is-now-available-worldwide-adds-chromebook-support/
Hi,

I'm tired and have had a hard day. I don't have much in the way of coherent thoughts now. But, those are pretty compelling examples showing, the potential for some users not needing all the hardware of a desktop to, possibly do the work they need in the future.

Impressive.

night_sky2

December 1st, 2015, 09:30 AM

Hi,

I'm tired and have had a hard day. I don't have much in the way of coherent thoughts now. But, those are pretty compelling examples showing, the potential for some users not needing all the hardware of a desktop to, possibly do the work they need in the future.

Impressive.
IMO, there will always be a market for desktop users, who want a bigger screen size, keyboard\mouse.

Because you are using more Web Apps for productivity and entertainment instead of traditional software on a local hardrive doesn't mean you don't want that bigger screen, mouse and keyboard. But clearly, I think the kind of desktop computer that is sold to the masses is bound to evolve ever more towards something smaller, tinier and more energy efficient. Sleek, wireless all-in-one desktop computer are also getting more popular. Gamers and powerusers will still built their own rigs though, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Kale_Freemon

December 1st, 2015, 03:30 PM

As long as I'm still breathing, there always be at least one person who prefers a desktop or laptop PC to a tablet.

I, personally, use laptops most of the time anymore because those are the easiest to transport without losing most of the PC functionality. And I like being able to take my computer with me from room to room, or from my house to another person's house.

mystics

December 1st, 2015, 10:18 PM

You can access iCloud with a web browser on any OS. Apple no longer discriminate.

Well, then, it seems they changed since I last checked. Given what happened when I tried logging in, it appears iCloud Drive (seriously, what is it with the obsession with "Drive"!) updated things. Granted, now I can't get into it from OS X, since I still haven't upgraded that past Mavericks.

Regardless, my point still stands: Apple had ways of keeping iCloud locked to environments that they chose. Just because they've removed those restrictions doesn't mean that the methods have suddenly vanished. Which again brings me back to my point: The cloud is not inherently OS agnostic. If you want to allow all OSs, you have to choose to allow them. While I doubt most developers would try to lock someone out, I think it is best we make that distinction.

Web apps are agnostic in the sense that they are runned through a modern browser as the platform.

Web browsers, however, still contain a user agent, which includes, among other things, information about the browser and OS. Any website can access this user agent and choose to block agents that the web developer, for whatever, doesn't want to access that site. And as ridiculous as that may sound, I've certainly come to websites that will lock out a browser or cripple its functionality. There's also the possibility of developing proprietary frameworks to handle the app and then limiting the accessibility to those frameworks to people on certain OSs and/or browsers.

In short, there are methods for companies, especially Apple and Microsoft, to find ways to turn the web into their own exclusive ecosystem. While web-based apps can be a great thing for Linux and I don't personally see many companies actively closing themselves off, it is best not to see web apps as so inherently open as to not have the potential to cut off Linux if someone wanted them to.

QDR06VV9

December 1st, 2015, 10:24 PM

While web-based apps can be a great thing for Linux and I don't personally see many companies actively closing themselves off, it is best not to see web apps as so inherently open as to not have the potential to cut off Linux if someone wanted them to.
+1

night_sky2

December 2nd, 2015, 08:06 AM

In short, there are methods for companies, especially Apple and Microsoft, to find ways to turn the web into their own exclusive ecosystem. While web-based apps can be a great thing for Linux and I don't personally see many companies actively closing themselves off, it is best not to see web apps as so inherently open as to not have the potential to cut off Linux if someone wanted them to.
But there is little point in cutting off Linux, that's the thing. Apple attempted to hide itself behind a walled garden but now realizes they were loosing a lot of potential users by doing that. The reason why Linux is cut off from software development is because a lot of companies don't want to invest the ressources to actively maintain a Linux version, when there is only a tiny 1.5% pool of users. Web Apps actually bypass this issue as the ''software'' is working on dedicated servers and accessed through a modern browser, not the OS. Therefore it really doesn't matter if you a using Windows, Linux, OSX, Android or iOS; the cloud is inherently multiplatform.

Copper Bezel

December 2nd, 2015, 09:59 AM

Well, terminology first, the cloud != the web. I mean, particularly when you're talking about cloud storage and syncing services, the whole point of which is often to have little hooks into native apps, like how Dropbox adds buttons in Nautilus on my laptop and the in camera app on my tablet, if also in my Gmail compose box that's, you know, being served by a webapp. But even if we're talking about apps that do run serverside and are properly "in" the cloud, rendering back an HTML interface through a browser, yeah, there are incentives to not offer them on platforms that aren't fully tested and supported and so on, or to flat lock out competing platforms. There are fewer of them, but those incentives can still exist.

I mean, like, I am so glad you told me about Skype's web client, because that is so much better than dealing with the insufferable kludge of the decade-old last update of the Linux client with an added Microsoft stamp (which is, yes, still more attention than the client had received for years before Microsoft bought them out) and I really do find myself generally preferring webapps where available. It doesn't guarantee that everything that can run a browser can access any particular thing, even discounting things like, say, Unity (the game engine) or, say, Netflix that are really sort of native apps that want to run inside a browser window than anything else.

It is unquestionably good, but don't oversell it as perfect. I think that's the point mystic's making here. Ball is still in the developers' court to decide whether they really want that last 1.5% of their potential customer base.

tuebinger90

December 4th, 2015, 02:54 PM

I can't imagine not having a PC in the 'office'. It acts as a server for music, tv shows, and movies. I can add capacity to it anytime (I replaced the original 250 GB hard drive with a 3 TB one over the summer). It's increasingly difficult to add storage to laptops, if not impossible. And you can't increase storage on tablets.

My PC is fast, quick, and reliable, even though it's seven years old. And since I built it myself from quality components I expect it's going to continue to serve me well for a while still.

With laptops and tablets now having an average life span of two years, I just don't see my PC becoming obsolete anytime soon.

mystics

December 4th, 2015, 04:54 PM

And you can't increase storage on tablets.

This isn't entirely true. Some tablets (e.g. Surface Pros) come with ports that can be used to increase the storage size through either an SD card or a USB hard drive. You could even have a USB strip to have multiple of these connected through a single USB port.

Alternatively, there's also the option to use cloud storage.

So while you may not be shoving in a 3 TB hard drive into the computer itself when you need more memory, it is possible to extend it through external devices and/or the cloud. That isn't to say that desktops don't have an advantage through their ability to be added on to as needed, but in terms of storage, there are options to add more to tablets and laptops.

mikodo

December 4th, 2015, 10:58 PM

With laptops and tablets now having an average life span of two years, I just don't see my PC becoming obsolete anytime soon.

Really? I know consumer products have planed for built in obsolescence like, cars for example. But, if one learns to repair them or, pay for one doing it, cars can last longer than when the parts need replacing. That's one of the reasons I like older cars. They are cheap, and when one is knowledgeable about the mechanics of them, it is a much less expensive mode of transportation. Added bonus is the appreciation that comes from tinkering and fixing. Also, often having more unique and individualized vehicles.

Cannot these laptops and tablets have components replaced?

Are there longer lasting brands one can buy?

I apologize for the off-topic questions.

poorguy

December 5th, 2015, 01:04 AM

[mikodo posted]
Are there longer lasting brands one can buy?

if you are willing to throw down some real cash these are the way to go in my opinion.

http://business.panasonic.com/toughbook/laptop-computers.html

mystics

December 5th, 2015, 02:15 AM

Cannot these laptops and tablets have components replaced?

Are there longer lasting brands one can buy?

Yes to both. The issue is that not every device is easy to fix, and sort of ironically, a lot of the higher-end devices that can last for longer also tend to have a form factor that makes it harder to fix yourself. The MacBook Pro has been a long-standing icon of just this. Most people I talk to can have one last for years (mine is running on 4.5 years and still functioning well), but they are very hard to fix.

And on the note of planned obsolescence: Is there any evidence that that is really what is going on? Most of the reading I've done, short of a proposal by an economist who doesn't work for any of these companies, is that people who have no knowledge of software development and engineering look at things like advanced software features that require new hardware, slowdown of devices on more advanced software, and tightened down devices and claim that it is some plan to force upgrades every few years. The thing is, though, there are a ton of reasons for all of those things that don't come down to planned obsolescence, and most of the reasons (e.g. more features, faster speeds, pleasing aesthetics) are ones high-end device manufacturers are going to pursue because they sell. The problem is, doing all of that and keeping things incredibly long-lasting would be prohibitively expensive and not practical. Why would I make a computer worth $5000 that has all the power, form factor, and durability to last ten years when people are going to replace it in three years regardless? And that's assuming anyone would buy a $5000 computer.

And besides, most of these devices are lasting longer than consumers want them. Do you think all the people turning in their iPhones every year have defective iPhones? No, they want the latest and greatest device. If people want to turn in their devices every 1-2 years, then planning a five year obsolescence is the worst conspiracy these otherwise brilliant businessmen have had.

With all that said, if anyone has concrete evidence that this planned obsolescence is an actual thing, then I would love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that it is anything more than a conspiracy that has been proposed so many times as to become "common knowledge" without any actual evidence.

sammiev

December 5th, 2015, 02:55 AM

I'm running many Toshiba's and my newest one is 6 years old and it's a Intel i5.

Boots and on the Internet in 9 seconds. ( Battery last 2 hours under a very heavy load )

Likely last me another 3 years or more.

mikodo

December 5th, 2015, 05:13 AM

- snippet - With all that said, if anyone has concrete evidence that this planned obsolescence is an actual thing, then I would love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that it is anything more than a conspiracy that has been proposed so many times as to become "common knowledge" without any actual evidence.
Thank you, for the answers.

I don't know what you deem, "actual evidence" as, anyone making decisions on how it should be designed are going to closed mouth about it.

I have read about cell-phones that come with non-replaceable batteries. Now that didn't just happen. Someone made the decision to market such devices. Sure, there possibly might be many plausible answers as to why those designs were chosen besides planned obsolescence but, never the less, it is still planned obsolescence.

Copper Bezel

December 5th, 2015, 08:01 AM

But there is little point in cutting off Linux, that's the thing. Apple attempted to hide itself behind a walled garden but now realizes they were loosing a lot of potential users by doing that. The reason why Linux is cut off from software development is because a lot of companies don't want to invest the ressources to actively maintain a Linux version, when there is only a tiny 1.5% pool of users. Web Apps actually bypass this issue as the ''software'' is working on dedicated servers and accessed through a modern browser, not the OS. Therefore it really doesn't matter if you a using Windows, Linux, OSX, Android or iOS; the cloud is inherently multiplatform.
I hate to bang on about this, but when we talked about Skype having a webapp now?

Yeah, it uh ... it has the same three buttons that Hangouts does, but two of them are greyed out with the tooltip, "Audio and video calls are not supported on your OS".

So, yeah. Not exactly a mark for the "webapps are inherently opener" column.

mystics

December 5th, 2015, 08:11 AM

I don't know what you deem, "actual evidence" as, anyone making decisions on how it should be designed are going to closed mouth about it.

And that's part of my problem. We don't have any actual evidence that such planning is made. But rather than consider all of the factors of designing, engineering, and making a device, journalists have spent considerable time going for the easy (and dare I say "clickable") articles about this being about planned obsolescence. But as far as I can tell, there is not actual evidence for this outside of a lot of loosely connected dots that can be connected in plenty of other (less newsworthy) ways.

I have read about cell-phones that come with non-replaceable batteries. Now that didn't just happen. Someone made the decision to market such devices.

While part of me thinks that part of this was so Apple could force people to go to their stores for repairs, it could also just be a matter of form factor. People have decided that they want sleek, aluminum cases that have little to no gaps and openings. That runs completely counter to the design around replacing a battery.

As an example: When comparing the iPhone 6 and Galaxy S5, the S5 absolutely dominated in practical build. It had a dimpled back (less slippery), a removable battery, an SD card slot, and could endure a good amount of abuse. Unfortunately, once the iPhone 6 took away the Galaxy line's advantage in larger screens, people decided they wanted the nice looking cases of the iPhone 6 over the practical ones of the S5. Samsung saw this and followed Apple's guidance with the S6.

Overall, it's easier to sell a nice-looking device. People don't care about the longer-term practicality, especially when they know they'll want to switch devices in a few years anyways. They'll go with what grabs their attention in store. In response, high-end device manufacturers often push form factor over practicality.

Sure, there possibly might be many plausible answers as to why those designs were chosen besides planned obsolescence but, never the less, it is still planned obsolescence.

Personally, I see planned obsolescence as actually, well, planned that way. If reasoning was based on social patterns and/or engineering constraints, then it wasn't planned obsolescence. The semi-defined obsolescence time is a side-effect.

mystics

December 5th, 2015, 08:25 AM

Sorry for the double post, but this came up when I was writing the last one.

I hate to bang on about this, but when we talked about Skype having a webapp now?

Yeah, it uh ... it has the same three buttons that Hangouts does, but two of them are greyed out with the tooltip, "Audio and video calls are not supported on your OS".

So, yeah. Not exactly a mark for the "webapps are inherently opener" column.

Just checked this and can confirm. Based around what I get on Windows, it appears that audio and video calls require a plugin to function. This isn't that surprising, as Hangouts also requires one. But apparently, Microsoft hasn't made one for Linux and just doesn't give the plugin message to Linux users.

So, like I said in an earlier post, it's possible to link web apps to proprietary software that you then don't offer to a certain OS.

Copper Bezel

December 5th, 2015, 09:03 AM

It's equally unsurprising that Google would offer a plugin for Linux systems and Microsoft wouldn't, because Google's writing a Linux-based plugin anyway for their own devices and might as well distribute it to snag a few more customers. But the real point is that the fact that something comes packaged as a webapp doesn't actually mean that it's cross-platform and definitely doesn't make it OS agnostic.

Buntu Bunny

December 5th, 2015, 02:30 PM

I'm a writer and book designer. A tablet wouldn't cut the mustard for my work.

mikodo

December 6th, 2015, 05:08 AM

- snippet -

Personally, I see planned obsolescence as actually, well, planned that way. If reasoning was based on social patterns and/or engineering constraints, then it wasn't planned obsolescence. The semi-defined obsolescence time is a side-effect.

All that you said, I agree with. I guess we need a better term to use for, this phenomenon.

The consumer driven capitalistic society we live in, has its' merits and downfalls. C'est la vie!

Have a nice day.

Copper Bezel

December 6th, 2015, 01:24 PM

Yeah, I have to admit that I've probably misused the phrase "planned obsolescence" quite a bit myself. When the people who drive the most sales are (naturally) the people who are able and eager to replace their devices every couple of years, and it's easier to sell a service contract and replace the occasional malfunctioning devices rather than designing the whole device around being easy to take apart and service, to say nothing of warranties and user serviceability being mutually exclusive and the latter often frustrating and ultimately costly in its own right, it really does make sense to end up with devices designed and cycled the way they are. I rather like being able to pop open my electronics and replace bits that go wrong, and I'm happy to have been able to do so even with my current tablet (a second-gen Nexus 7), but I have to admit that that's not a realistic solution for quite a lot of people and that there's not a lot of difference between taking something to a shop to be repaired and mailing it to the manufacturer for replacement from a consumer standpoint.

Wadim_Korneev

December 6th, 2015, 02:23 PM

TrolleyMC

December 7th, 2015, 12:05 AM

Technology changes quickly – today’s popular devices may be obsolete in only two years. Manufacturers debut new hardware every year that threatens to replace the previous generations. Recently, it’s become apparent that the desktop PCs may eventually be replaced by mobile computing options like laptops and tablets.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, desktops are most popular with older users. Younger users are more likely to own laptops and are the first generation to prefer mobile options to their stationary counterparts. Some industry experts aren’t prepared to say that desktop PCs are obsolete, but that time may be coming.

I agree with you I mean like they already made a pc into a STICK. :popcorn::popcorn:):P:lolflag::p:popcorn::popcorn:

ChuangTzu

December 7th, 2015, 09:47 PM

Obsolete never. Tablets are mainly designed for consumption/entertainment and not work. Laptops, Desktops will always be around in one form or another, even Windows is starting to make their tablets more laptopish.

Remember, Steve Jobs never allowed ipads in his house, his kids were forbidden to use them, they could use Macs etc...but not ipads...so I think that says alot.

poorguy

December 8th, 2015, 12:12 AM

kurt18947

December 9th, 2015, 12:28 AM

Technology changes quickly – today’s popular devices may be obsolete in only two years. Manufacturers debut new hardware every year that threatens to replace the previous generations. Recently, it’s become apparent that the desktop PCs may eventually be replaced by mobile computing options like laptops and tablets.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, desktops are most popular with older users. Younger users are more likely to own laptops and are the first generation to prefer mobile options to their stationary counterparts. Some industry experts aren’t prepared to say that desktop PCs are obsolete, but that time may be coming.

I could certainly see a notebook attached to a dock or with separate connections replacing a traditional tower desktop. Unless productivity apps change substantially I can't see the keyboard/pointing device/one or more large hi-res displays going away anytime soon. If Microsoft's continuum (I wonder where they got that idea?) become a thing it might make tablets or phones more consequential in the workspace.

mystics

December 9th, 2015, 01:10 AM

If Microsoft's continuum (I wonder where they got that idea?)

I think this has been a long time coming from at least one of the major tech giants, most of all Microsoft. Pretty much since mobile devices started taking off, there's been a lot of time spent trying to get all devices to more seamlessly work together. Apple has spent a considerable amount of time getting OS X and iOS to better work together, and Google has built their own more cross-platform ecosystem. There's also been a lot of third-party applications (e.g. Pushbullet) that have also been built around this idea.

The thing is, both Apple and Google have traditionally kept some form of separation between their major software. There's OS X and iOS, and while those two communicate well, they've never been the same. The same could be said of Android and Chrome. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been clearly moving towards a single-OS solution for a while. Windows 8 was decidedly a tablet-focused OS that they wanted to force on desktop users, but that proved to be a disaster. Windows 10 continued this trend, though with significantly more care than Windows 8 had. Even from a hardware perspective, Microsoft's Surface devices are very much based around the idea of blurring the line between devices. And from a creation standpoint, Nadella is putting a lot behind the idea of universal apps, much to the chagrin of some Microsoft shareholders like Ballmer. Continuum is just a logical progression of all of this, as it attempts to blur the line between phone and computer just like the Surface devices have been blurring the line between tablet and laptop.

That isn't to say Microsoft wasn't inspired, at least a little bit, by Ubuntu. Maybe they were, just like their direction for Windows 8 maybe inspired the direction Ubuntu has gone over the last few years, including convergence. However, I think it is very hard to pinpoint exactly where Microsoft got the idea for continuum. At the very least, it has appeared to be a goal for them for the last few years, even if the feature didn't have a name and wasn't in a working condition until just recently.

yoshii

December 9th, 2015, 06:21 AM

people who compose music or make digital art/photos for a living typically prefer desktops. artists might want large monitors for viewing their craft. and in music production it's actually common for people to use two monitors at the same time while they compose/edit. also in music production, the desktops tend to be more customizeable and stable.

not everyone is in the class of people only using their computers for email, youtube, and netflix.

and in universities and industries there might be some specialized usages of desktop computers.

RichardLinx

December 9th, 2015, 06:23 PM

IMHO there is still no substitute to a keyboard + mouse combination .

Agreed. I use an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor... with my laptop.

I don't think desktop computer's will become obsolete in the near future, but they will be used by a small minority of users and hobbyists who are focused on juicing out as much performance out of their machines as possible.

Twenty years from now I can see desktop computers being a very niche market, though. Mini PC's like the Rikomagic V5 (http://androidpcreview.com/the-rkm-v5-the-fifth-generation-of-rikomagic-stick-pc/2153/) are rapidly becoming pretty powerful thanks to the smart phone market (Not to mentions smart phones, tablets, and chrome books as well), so I can imagine two decades from now a computer the size of a thumb will be able to wirelessly connect to your monitor, keyboard, mouse and other peripherals and do just about whatever you'd hope a modern computer to do - and for a lot cheaper than a desktop PC.

So obsolete? Nah, never. But I seriously doubt they will be the main computer for the vast majority of users. I imagine a lot of people will think "Why get a massive, expensive brick of a computer for $2000 when I can just dock my $200 phone. I also suspect VR headsets will be a major component of peoples near future computer use, which mobile platforms have proven quick to adapt (Samsung Gear VR, Google Cardboard, etc)

ChuangTzu

December 10th, 2015, 12:15 AM

Agreed. I use an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor... with my laptop.......So obsolete? Nah, never. But I seriously doubt they will be the main computer for the vast majority of users. I imagine a lot of people will think "Why get a massive, expensive brick of a computer for $2000 when I can just dock my $200 phone. I also suspect VR headsets will be a major component of peoples near future computer use, which mobile platforms have proven quick to adapt (Samsung Gear VR, Google Cardboard, etc)

Who spends $2,000 for a PC? Sorry but I prefer off lease PC's, build your own etc... Slap Linux on it and let it run like a puppy. Even laptops have come down to the $2-300 range for a decent rig. PC's will probably go back to the domain of the "real" users, consumers can keep their new fangled plugins and tablets. BTW, those new large tablets make nice serving trays for drinks. ):P

mystics

December 10th, 2015, 02:00 AM

Who spends $2,000 for a PC?

Apparently a lot of people considering the number of people who preordered the $2000+ variants of the Surface Book were enough to push the shipping date back to January, and that was before it even released. Granted, that is more of a hybrid device than a pure laptop, but it still was marketed as a laptop primarily.

Aren't $2000+ computers also really big in the gaming scene?

Even laptops have come down to the $2-300 range for a decent rig.

You could buy a $200 laptop, but don't expect it to be a capable powerhouse that is also able to last for any decent amount of time. You can't keep costs down like that without cutting corners somewhere. In a lot of cases, they're cutting corners everywhere.

linuxyogi

December 12th, 2015, 03:18 PM

I don't do any personal work on any proprietary OS. AFAIK Android is not completely open source and I cant install Ubuntu on my Asus Fonepad 7.
So I use my desktop most of the time.

Erik1984

December 12th, 2015, 05:28 PM

For home users traditional desktop (tower) PCs will become obsolete. For professional use (developers and designers for example) I don't think they will in the near future.

shantiq

December 19th, 2015, 05:01 PM

yoshii

December 20th, 2015, 03:01 AM

I heartily agree with shantiq. PCs until we drop!

shantiq

December 20th, 2015, 09:20 AM

Thank you Yoshi2
anyone who uses DAW or CAD or composes music {i personally use rosegarden (http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/)} or draws or paint on a PC architects scientists etc will NEVER want to do this on a 6-inch device however performant it might become ... as you say further up people do not just use their electronic internet devices just for email and FB ... PCs can be serious professional and artistic tools; the lesser toys not so ... they will probably remain about-town equipment and never more than that ... PCs are under no threat of extinction

poorguy

December 20th, 2015, 02:17 PM

Thank you Yoshi2
as you say further up people do not just use their electronic internet devices just for email and FB ... PCs can be serious professional and artistic tools; the lesser toys not so ... they will probably remain about-town equipment and never more than that ... PCs are under no threat of extinction

[Originally Posted by shantiq]
I like a fullsize mouse in my hand a large screen and a keyboard i can see (http://www.gameseek.co.uk/images/products/accuratus_monster_2_usb_hi_vis_keyboard_uppercase. jpg).
anyway they all have reduced capacity/functions.
so to summarize : PCs until we drop.

I miss the mainframe-sized machines you saw in series like Mannix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannix). Those were computers. [I like that and remember the tv series Mannix.]

AGREED.
Desktop PCs will never become obsolete.

Bucky Ball

December 20th, 2015, 04:06 PM

PCs can be serious professional and artistic tools; the lesser toys not so ... they will probably remain about-town equipment and never more than that ... PCs are under no threat of extinction

Yes. For me it seems to have naturally evolved that I have different devices for different things. A full-blown two screen desktop for 'creative things', a laptop with a monitor attached for uni things/paper writing/research ... and forums, and just got my first ever 'smartphone' (shame about the operator) for photo taking and sms mostly (have no need to download apps from GooglePlay, thanks).

I forgot about the HP Stream 11 which has a huge battery life, is light and great for doodling about on when travelling. (We are currently on holiday and have been using it for navigating while driving with a mobile wifi modem. There is no way I would be squinting at a four and half inch smartphone screen for that. 11 inches is barely enough.)

mystics

December 20th, 2015, 11:20 PM

6-inch device

Not all tablets are 6-inches, though. Some tablets are in the 12 to 13 inch range now and come with enough accessories to help them function like a laptop or even a desktop. Microsoft's Surface line is the most popular of these, but other companies like Apple, Google, and Sony have started jumping into the market with varying degrees of success. And while I personally am not on board with these larger tablets (still a little too small for me), I can definitely see the appeal. They can, from what I've seen, cover just about everything a person could want out of a PC, with the exception of high-end gaming. But they're also very portable and versatile, meaning a person can both bring them wherever they want (unlike a desktop) and cover what they want their PC (both desktop and laptop) and tablets to do.

But at the same time, I'm not sure that these devices are really threatening traditional PCs, more just redefining them. For all their uses, I still see people constantly attaching a keyboard to them to use like a laptop. But with larger tablets along with the laptop-focused 2-in-1 devices, I'd imagine we'll progressively see PCs and tablets merging rather than competing. That's not to say we'll completely see an end to traditional PCs (at the very least, high-end gaming should give the desktop a niche) or traditional tablets (because some people are addicted to lightweight devices), but I don't think we can discount tablets based on 6-inch ones either.

sammiev

December 21st, 2015, 12:50 AM

Not all tablets are 6-inches, though. Some tablets are in the 12 to 13 inch range now and come with enough accessories to help them function like a laptop or even a desktop. Microsoft's Surface line is the most popular of these, but other companies like Apple, Google, and Sony have started jumping into the market with varying degrees of success. And while I personally am not on board with these larger tablets (still a little too small for me), I can definitely see the appeal. They can, from what I've seen, cover just about everything a person could want out of a PC, with the exception of high-end gaming. But they're also very portable and versatile, meaning a person can both bring them wherever they want (unlike a desktop) and cover what they want their PC (both desktop and laptop) and tablets to do.

But at the same time, I'm not sure that these devices are really threatening traditional PCs, more just redefining them. For all their uses, I still see people constantly attaching a keyboard to them to use like a laptop. But with larger tablets along with the laptop-focused 2-in-1 devices, I'd imagine we'll progressively see PCs and tablets merging rather than competing. That's not to say we'll completely see an end to traditional PCs (at the very least, high-end gaming should give the desktop a niche) or traditional tablets (because some people are addicted to lightweight devices), but I don't think we can discount tablets based on 6-inch ones either.

My 10 inch tablet with keyboard is my best friend well traveling and I have many laptops. Fits in my overnight bag, what can I say.

sonicwind

December 24th, 2015, 07:33 PM

I can't imagine giving up my desktop PC for a number of reasons.

1) Many things just aren't suitable for tablets or smartphones.
2) The same for laptops for those of us with large hands. Yes, I've tried the supposed near or full sized keyboards and they just don't work for me.
3) I've been using computers at a desk for 25+ years. It's what I'm used to and I'm not good at change.

I do love the 1/3rd size box I have now compared to the big cases of the past. I imagine they will continue to get smaller (I think they already have. I'm not fully informed on what's out there.)

C.S.Cameron

December 26th, 2015, 07:46 AM

My work involves a lot of 3D modeling and stress analysis.

I prefer a large tower with multiple 32" monitors.
I can get by with a mobile work station and an extra 32" monitor.

In the near future the tower could easily be replaced by a device similar to an Intel Compute Stick.
The monitors might be replaced by VR glasses.

I now use the keyboard as seldom as possible but can't think of a good substitute for the mouse.

Kale_Freemon

December 26th, 2015, 09:16 AM

As much as I love my phone, and enjoyed the few tablets I've owned and sold throughout the last three years, I just cannot find a suitable replacement for my laptop. I have no use for a desktop machine at this point. But a laptop provides just enough portability for me while still providing me with the power of a full desktop operating system.

Don't get me wrong, my phone is wonderful for when I'm out and about. Perfect little device to compliment my laptop. But, it cannot replace my laptop. It's going to be very difficult to make me even want to give up my laptop. lol

Mike_Walsh

December 27th, 2015, 07:37 PM

well i have personally no time for tablets laptops especially with a trackpad
I love PCs the bigger the better :] I miss the mainframe-sized machines you saw in series like Mannix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannix)
Those were computers http://s20.postimg.org/edwzel5ll/Mannix_1x01_Il_S_Appelle_Mannix_FR_LD_DVDRip_Xvi.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/edwzel5ll/)http://s9.postimg.org/yns1y7l17/Mannix_1x01_Il_S_Appelle_Mannix_FR_LD_DVDRip_Xvi.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/yns1y7l17/)
All these dainty little toys irritate :] I am 6 feet 4 my hands and fingers are not very big but trackpads tablets and the like ney thanx; anyway they all have reduced capacity/functions
I like a fullsize mouse in my hand a large screen and a keyboard i can see (http://www.gameseek.co.uk/images/products/accuratus_monster_2_usb_hi_vis_keyboard_uppercase. jpg)
And please do not get me strted on mobiles; clearly all designed for the dainty hands of 11-year old girls preferably in the Orient/ one of my fingers hits 3 keys at a time

so to summarize : PCs until we drop

Well said, shantiq! I may use a laptop alongside my 10-yr old Compaq desktop.....but it's an elderly one, with a decent sized keyboard and screen.

I'm like you; I want to be able to see and feel what I'm doing! And I agree; mainframes were computers, when I was growing up. They're what I shall always think of one somebody starts talking about them.

I don't see desktops going away any time soon, although I agree with some posters on here; I see them becoming more of a niche market....but becoming increasingly more powerful at the same time, as computing 'digitalizes' ever more applications.

Regards,

Mike. ;)

pbpersson

December 27th, 2015, 08:24 PM

I will weigh in on this.

I have a Raspberry Pi, laptops, and a large Android that I treat as a mini tablet - and of course lots of desktop towers. I don't want to buy a tablet because if I take it with me I'm afraid I'm going to leave it sitting somewhere and it will be stolen. That is the downside of the convenience of a tablet from my point of view. I am somewhat absent minded. My mother used to say I would forget my head if it wasn't attached. :-)

If I must use a laptop and I want to be productive, I attach a real keyboard, monitor, and mouse and pretend it is a desktop. ;)

I like the productivity of a desktop machine but I don't like the huge towers with all the cooling fans that throw off so much heat. I live in the Arizona desert, we don't need more heat here. Also, I don't open the desktops very often and when I do the fans are all clogged up and many of them have broken.

I have become disallusioned with these huge tower machines. If I had the money I would replace them with these using external hard drives: http://www.fit-pc.com/web/unleash/fit/mintbox-2/specifications.jpg

However, I really don't think that tablets will take over unless you can connect a real monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Can you do that with tablets? This shows how much I don't know about them - I have largely ignored them, partially due to the price of these things.

Mike_Walsh

December 27th, 2015, 09:25 PM

Hi, pbpersson.

From your perspective, it sounds as though you'd be better off investigating these mini-PC's that are becoming increasingly popular. I've looked at them myself; many of them utilise the lower power mobile processors ( which are becoming more & more powerful as time goes by), which have minimal power consumption, and, by extension, far lower heat output. Some of them are, indeed, fanless.....one less thing to go wrong!

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/makes-mini-pcs-small-best-mini-pcs-can-buy-today/
http://lifehacker.com/five-best-small-form-factor-pcs-1701619172

EDIT: From looking at your link, you're already thinking along the same lines, I see! Are those 'Mintboxes'?

Regards,

Mike. ;)