by Toshio on 7/19/13, 2:16 PM with 51 comments
by bhauer on 7/19/13, 2:52 PM
Microsoft and all of the desktop PC hardware manufacturers should be investing heavily in larger form-factor, high-density displays. I believe that combining an immersive display format with the ongoing developments toward gesture and touch input would give desktop computing a necessary renaissance.
These companies should feel ashamed that it took ~8 years to progress past the 30" 2560x1600 form factor to a $3,500 ASUS "4k" monitor. In 2013, a "4k" monitor on the desktop should be entry-level technology. After all, entry-level phones pull off still higher density. (Yes, I know that manufacturing a high-density large screen is expensive and that's the point; it's expensive because hardly any R&D is going into that channel and these companies have no idea how to stir up demand for something new and innovative on the desktop.)
A 4k LCD monitor should be entry level. Had desktop displays progressed steadily rather than regressing (thanks to the taint of "HD") after the T220, an enthusiast desktop today should be ~8k OLED or better.
by cognivore on 7/19/13, 3:39 PM
There is absolutely no reason the general public should be using the traditional desktop computer. They should be using limited use devices tailored to the things that people want to do the most – prattle, get directions, browse the web, and buy stuff. They can use their smart phone or tablet for these. Such devices fit the technical commitment level of the general public, not demanding much in the way of learning or expertise.
Computers should be for computer people who are willing to make the investment that they require to use properly and effectively. The general public has consistently shown they do not have this capability, and only serve as drag on those technical.
As we move forward and the majority of the population is on phones and tablets those who have made the investment to use computers well will have a decided advantage in our increasingly technological world.
by th0ma5 on 7/19/13, 4:06 PM
1. < $300
2. No fan
3. SDD
4. GPU
5. x86
Because of the need to support Windows a lot of netbooks are missing the SSD and add the fan. A lot of the Chromebooks are Atom. The one Samsung one maybe fits this bill, but I think it is on its way out.
I had hope for Haswell, but turns out it may break #1.
Anyway, I guess I need to start thinking about Atom and what kinds of OpenGL ES kinds of things maybe, and forget about OpenCL or some such, which is probably appropriate anyway.
The point of how awesome the machine is that it is small, quiet, and an amazing terminal into the various clusters I utilize.
Thanks Microsoft, for killing them off.
by mariusmg on 7/19/13, 3:17 PM
by Yrlec on 7/19/13, 4:09 PM
by mwfunk on 7/19/13, 6:27 PM
The constant forays into new markets isn't new- they've been doing that since the mid-90s at least. At that time they had essentially "won" the PC market and achieved 90%+ market share with Windows and Office. Those products grew and grew until they had nowhere to go. You'd think that would be great for them (and it has been), but stock prices for the tech industry are driven by growth, not profits. If you aren't constantly growing and expanding, your stock price will flatline or start declining. So, for the last 15-20 years Microsoft has been taking the profits from their cash cows and throwing them into one attempt at expansion after another- MSN, Web TV, Zune, Xbox (which was ultimately successful, but not especially profitable)...on and on.
Hardly any of their expansion attempts worked out for various reasons. Often their products were clones of some other company's already successful product, and coming out with something just as good (or even a little better) a year or two later is just not good enough to unseat a firmly established competitor. They also push the Microsoft and Windows branding hard, on everything they make, but those are just not brands that most consumers have positive associations with.
That's the fate of many tech companies, and it's kind of depressing: they have huge success with some core products, blow up over a short period of time, and effectively achieve monopolies with those products. The core products become cash cows, reliably raking in tons of money quarter after quarter, but they have nowhere left to go. So the company dedicates itself to throwing that cash cow money at one (usually) failed attempt at expansion to new markets after another, but hardly anything takes hold and they are punished by the stock market and their shareholders, despite the fact that they are still insanely profitable. In the worst case, some sea change in the industry comes along after a decade or two, and all of a sudden their dependable cash cow starts drying up. It happened with IBM, it's been happening with Microsoft, and it'll probably happen to many of the top tech companies right now. It sucks and it's stupid, but that's the nature of the tech industry; being publicly traded is a double-edged sword because if you're not constantly growing and expanding, your shareholders think you are failing. I wish more companies could settle into a state of doing one thing really well and not have constant pressure to expand, because that's ultimately what kills them.
by themstheones on 7/19/13, 3:41 PM
by DanielBMarkham on 7/19/13, 4:48 PM
Instead, somehow the desktop crowd started chasing gamers, creating faster and faster video cards and overclocked processors on the high-end. That was a nice crutch for a few years, but it's not a growth strategy. For the desktop/household PC to grow, it needs to develop into something that it's currently not: an immersive computing experience that's part of your household. That might even include starting to team off with builders to make the PC part of the normal decorative process of designing houses. There's no reason some kind of swappable PC with a wall display couldn't be part of household room designs.
The form factor is dead because the industry has lost the ability to execute on a vision. Instead they're just trying to see how long they can milk the cash cow. Looks like we're now beginning to see an answer to that question.