Future of home computing

[IanKennedy]

I'm currently using a Quad core 2.7GHz i7 (turbo boost up to 3.7GHz), 16GB RAM, 767GB of SSD and a NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics card with 1GB of GDDR5 VRAM. There's not that may desktops that would out pace it.

Oh, yes it also has a screen resolution of 2880 X 1800.

Yeah, I bet that came in under $400.

If my PC starts falling behind, I can replace a few components for $100 and be right back to compatible with new software. If I had to shell out $1000 every 2-3 years for a new tablet or laptop, I wouldn't be able to afford a computer. I've had the same 1600x1200 monitor for about 10 years now, so there's a component I don't need to upgrade; nothing I need uses higher res than that. What about gaming, or writing? Shitty virtual keyboards and tiny eye-strain screens don't fly for gaming or watching videos. Mobile devices are cool for people who don't need a larger screen or a real keyboard, or much power (for anything less than the cost of a used car), but the market for PCs shouldn't go anywhere. Overpriced, pre-packaged HP-style machines? Sure, but not PCs in general.

I'm not sure what price has to do with it. I'm simply saying that the view of laptops having to be slow is incorrect.

[IanKennedy]

Can't be that small of a minority, or sites like Tiger Direct wouldn't even exist. You shouldn't have to spend a fortune buying a whole new device when you can just buy individual components. It's a ripoff, and just another way they're screwing over the growing low-income portion of the population. Since you have to own a computer in today's society, there is literally no option.

In the end, where this is headed is that low-income people just won't be able to afford computers, or at least nothing of any real utility or quality without spending half a year's salary on one.

Ah, the cheap boot fallacy. You buy cheap boots and then repair them over and over again. If you simply saved up and bought a decent pair they would last much longer at about the same cost.

[Tsukiyumi]

What a crap analogy. What are you supposed to do in the meantime? Go barefoot?

Not everybody is able to just "save up" thousands of dollars.

[Tsukiyumi]

Also,

I'm not sure what price has to do with it. I'm simply saying that the view of laptops having to be slow is incorrect.

I'm simply saying that laptops are plenty slow if you can't afford to spend thousands on them.

[IanKennedy]

What a crap analogy. What are you supposed to do in the meantime? Go barefoot?

Not everybody is able to just "save up" thousands of dollars.

I didn't say 1000's I said a decent machine. What do you do in the mean time. You either do without or use what you already have. It's not like a computer is an essential item.

[IanKennedy]

Also,

I'm not sure what price has to do with it. I'm simply saying that the view of laptops having to be slow is incorrect.

I'm simply saying that laptops are plenty slow if you can't afford to spend thousands on them.

Which proves what? That cheap computers are cheap for a reason. The point is that cheap computers, of any type, are slow. Expensive ones, of any type, tend to be faster. So what. The point was that someone said that laptops always lag behind in terms of power. I was simply pointing out that not all laptops lag behind, nothing you've said alters that.

[Tsukiyumi]

It's not like a computer is an essential item.

Perhaps they aren't in the UK, but over here they certainly are. I have to log onto a certain website once a week, or I get fired. Paying bills offline would require a long drive for me, and therefore cost me a lot of extra money I don't have over time. Homework is online only for an increasing number of schools, including the college classes I'm about to take. And there are other examples.

For a given price (say $400), you can get a desktop or a laptop; the laptop most certainly is going to lag behind in terms of power and utility. Naturally if you have more money to spend, you can get a faster one - my point was that for millions of people, there isn't a choice of saving up more money to get a laptop that would equal a desktop that they can get much cheaper. So, if your choice is either a $400 desktop (3ghz intel i3 dual core, 4GB DDR3 RAM, 250gb HD, 1GB PCI-e DDR3 geforce 210 to use my $375 upgrade from last year as an example), or a $400 laptop, the desktop is still the better choice.

If PC desktops disappear, millions of low-income people will just have to get crappy substandard tablets or laptops, forever lagging behind in terms of what software they can run, which can be a big problem if you have to use some certain software for work or school, and cant afford to buy the latest greatest iwidget.

Again, for a given price, laptops certainly do lag behind desktops.

[stitch626]

The 650M has about the same performance than the 550ti, hence a year behind (though still closer than the 500Ms were to the 400s).

Also, putting all that into a desktop can easily be half that of a laptop, along with not needing to buy a new case for a while, nor a power supply if you have a decent one that lasts, nor needing a new monitor for a while.

Laptops simply cannot compete with desktops for power, longevity, and cost of upgrading (and cost period). Yet.


And forget about other mobile devices. They are a compliment, not a supplement, to the home PC. And they likely always will be, simply because anything you can put into a small device to make it powerful can have more of it put into a PC to be even more powerful (as is the case with the new tegra chips).

[IanKennedy]

The 650M has about the same performance than the 550ti, hence a year behind (though still closer than the 500Ms were to the 400s).

Also, putting all that into a desktop can easily be half that of a laptop, along with not needing to buy a new case for a while, nor a power supply if you have a decent one that lasts, nor needing a new monitor for a while.

Laptops simply cannot compete with desktops for power, longevity, and cost of upgrading (and cost period). Yet.


And forget about other mobile devices. They are a compliment, not a supplement, to the home PC. And they likely always will be, simply because anything you can put into a small device to make it powerful can have more of it put into a PC to be even more powerful (as is the case with the new tegra chips).

The graphics performance doesn't really matter to me, nor to most people. It can matter to gamers, I will agree. People clearly don't really care about the issue because more and more people are buying laptops instead of desktops. The figures are quite pronounced.

[IanKennedy]

It's not like a computer is an essential item.

Perhaps they aren't in the UK, but over here they certainly are. I have to log onto a certain website once a week, or I get fired. Paying bills offline would require a long drive for me, and therefore cost me a lot of extra money I don't have over time. Homework is online only for an increasing number of schools, including the college classes I'm about to take. And there are other examples.

Well that's a new one on me, I will admit. However, if that's your only requirement you can simply, either do it at work or go to the library.

For a given price (say $400), you can get a desktop or a laptop; the laptop most certainly is going to lag behind in terms of power and utility. Naturally if you have more money to spend, you can get a faster one - my point was that for millions of people, there isn't a choice of saving up more money to get a laptop that would equal a desktop that they can get much cheaper. So, if your choice is either a $400 desktop (3ghz intel i3 dual core, 4GB DDR3 RAM, 250gb HD, 1GB PCI-e DDR3 geforce 210 to use my $375 upgrade from last year as an example), or a $400 laptop, the desktop is still the better choice.

Only if you ignore the utility of portability. Sales figures would indicate that people are buying a lot more laptops than desktops. Clearly they don't think they way that you do.

If PC desktops disappear, millions of low-income people will just have to get crappy substandard tablets or laptops, forever lagging behind in terms of what software they can run, which can be a big problem if you have to use some certain software for work or school, and cant afford to buy the latest greatest iwidget.

Again, for a given price, laptops certainly do lag behind desktops.

I always find it amusing when people try and tell me about being poor. It's a subject I probably know more about than anyone here. Given you are all living in a property that has an electricity supply and a telephone line. When I was growing up there where certainly extended periods of time when we didn't have either. Being unemployed for nearly five years can do that to you.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I guess it's time for me to weigh in. There are too many quotes to point to so I'll just say my thoughts.

IMO, everyone before is a bit right and a bit wrong. Portable computing devices for the foreseeable future will indeed lag behind traditional desktops in pure performance at a particular cost. Even if there was a tablet that matched an equally priced desktop, it would have a comparatively puny screen and either a virtual keyboard or something external (either way it would be a small keyboard). I use a desktop, and love my 23" full HD screen. While such a tablet could be made to connect to a bigger screen (or other peripherals), even wirelessly, that only works when in range of a big screen; the idea of the popularity of portable devices indicates that a lot of time will be spent with the device on the go.

On the other hand, an issue that's becoming increasingly evident is the idea that a given computer is fast enough. Moore's law continues it's course but the demand for computing power is driven by a relatively small and diminishing portion of the computing population. Extreme gamers who want to run the highest-end games at the highest resolution and still squeeze out every last frame per second possible, are in a minority as are professional workstation users. For most people that come into the computer repair shop at which I work, their laptop or desktop is mostly used for pretty basic things most of the time. It might not be quite proper to call them glorified internet appliances since they can do far more, but many consumers won't need those extra abilities more than a small percent of the time. The fact is that mainstream computers of even a few years ago are overpowered for such basic uses. Windows itself no longer demands increased hardware requirements, after the last big bump came with Vista (7 and 8 are quite efficient). For "Joe average" users like these, a tablet might do all they need it to do. Meanwhile current tablets have as much computing power as desktops of some years ago and these ultra-mobile low (electrical) power chips are growing in computing power at an impressive rate.

Even traditional desktops don't have unlimited upgradeability; a given platform will only go so far until it's motherboard needs to be replaced. Intel in particular has been requiring new CPU sockets every couple of years. At the point at which you replace a motherboard you are essentially creating a whole new system and incurring a rather significant cost anyway (even if you can retain stuff like the case, hard drives, etc).

[Tsukiyumi]

Well that's a new one on me, I will admit. However, if that's your only requirement you can simply, either do it at work or go to the library.

You seem to be under the impression that we have a bunch of public transit over here; we don't. I can't do homework at work.

Only if you ignore the utility of portability. Sales figures would indicate that people are buying a lot more laptops than desktops. Clearly they don't think they way that you do.

Oh, I know. A lot of people will just have their kids go hungry so that they can afford the new iWhatever. Idiots aside, I dislike the removal of the option. how long are these things viable? Three years? Five maybe? And then you have to buy a whole new $3000 system again. Point is, they are eliminating the value option via targeted advertisements, higher production of what they want to sell, and what amounts to peer pressure. Until they start producing laptops you can upgrade without specialized tools, I think it's bullshit. I may invest in some of those tools, however, as this trend shows no sign of going away.

I always find it amusing when people try and tell me about being poor. It's a subject I probably know more about than anyone here. Given you are all living in a property that has an electricity supply and a telephone line. When I was growing up there where certainly extended periods of time when we didn't have either. Being unemployed for nearly five years can do that to you.

And when I was growing up, we lived in a tent , a van, a car, and finally caught a break and got a 21-foot Airstream travel trailer that I lived in until I was 12. I'm not there anymore, but I certainly don't find poverty amusing. Consider yourself lucky that you live in a country that allows poor folks the opportunity to get a free higher education, so that you can move up to where you are now.

[Tsukiyumi]

CPH - mostly good points. My $375 upgrade a year ago included the motherboard as well, and a case. Tiger Direct, man.

Here's an example, though - no one accepts in person applications anymore. If you want a job, you have to apply online. The library gives you 1 hour per day. Period. That's assuming you can get to one (I don't know about elsewhere, but they've been shutting down like crazy here in America over the last few years); if you have transportation. So, again, it's increasingly not an option to not own a computer. Unless you want to live under a bridge.

Oh, wait, they won't let you do that anymore. Sorry. You get arrested, they throw away all of your stuff, and then let you back out on the street.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

CPH - mostly good points. My $375 upgrade a year ago included the motherboard as well, and a case. Tiger Direct, man.

Here's an example, though - no one accepts in person applications anymore. If you want a job, you have to apply online. The library gives you 1 hour per day. Period. That's assuming you can get to one (I don't know about elsewhere, but they've been shutting down like crazy here in America over the last few years); if you have transportation. So, again, it's increasingly not an option to not own a computer. Unless you want to live under a bridge.

Oh, wait, they won't let you do that anymore. Sorry. You get arrested, they throw away all of your stuff, and then let you back out on the street.

Yeah, I don't have much direct knowledge about much of the rest of the US. For all it's relatively high costs of living, New York City still offers a world-class public transportation system and an outstanding public library system. I'm in a funny spot in which I'm personally poor but live in middle-class conditions thanks to the support of my parents. My only bill is for my phone (dirt cheap plan - less than $30 a month even with all the add-on fees); I don't own a car thanks in large part to that great NYC transit system. Most of my income is (for the time being) effectively disposable, though I save a ton in practice. Though I haven't experienced it first-hand, the increasing "criminalization of being poor" is morally abhorrent.

[Tsukiyumi]

It really is. As is the lack of public transit in most of the country.

I'll just sum up my argument here.

1) computer ownership is no longer really optional.
2) manufacturers are steering the trends by overproducing and overhyping specific products that are eliminating the low-cost options.
3) laptops and tabletberry/whatevers are not at all useful for writing (essays, fiction, etc), gaming, watching movies, and are not easily upgradable, if at all.
4) thanks to 1, 2 and 3 mean that low-income people will be at an even greater disadvantage in the coming years.