The level of abstraction at which the average tinkerer is tinkering continuously increases over time. Certainly makes things harder for those who long to tinker at a lower level, but I don't see it as a tragedy.
I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
321–330 of 693 posts
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#322What's crazy to me is how insanely overspec'd mobile devices are for what they deliver. If you went back in time and told 1999 me the following: I'll give you a computer with the following: * 256GB of solid-state storage * 6 CPUs @ 3+GHz * 8GB of RAM * Weighs only 200 grams * Battery-powered, lasts 5+ hours * 1440 x 3168 resolution display I would have been absolutely gobsmacked. Such a machine absolutely outclasses…
You want to 'develop' on a mobile device? Interested to hear how you would envision this being a pleasant experience. It's also a trade off between installing what software you want and security - the App store means you don't have to worry about (certain kinds) of maliciousness from software you install. I just think it's a little bit of a spicy take saying mobile devices "don't deliver" when they are most successfu…
> they provide enormous value.
My point is that they have incredible computational power that is often wasted on pretty graphics and other nonessentials. Pretty much all communication/text apps (except video) could easily run on a device spec'd far lower. The web is ridiculously bloated and full of ads and crapware. Just rendering pages of decent-looking text shouldn't take so much power. Even manipulating maps for navigation is mostly a 2d graphics scaling problem that can't possibly require that much horsepower.
But yes, my point about development does pretty much rely on having an external keyboard and mouse.
Here's a pic of the logic board of an iPhone 11: https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/UNjifVHATsvaagZB.f...
The miniaturization of tech is absolutely astounding to me, even today. We're pretty unappreciative and wasteful, IMHO. 20 year old me would have been absolutely astounded that that much power was packed in that tiny space, and yet what it delivers is just marginally prettier and not more usable than back then.
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's useful to conflate the terms 'mobile' and 'portable'. You've been able to make a portable desktop for several decades. (I recall one Compaq that came in a closable case with a handle.) That's not typically what people mean by 'mobile'. That 'extreme example' weighs as much as many laptops and it's just a case. Even if you carried a small display, and everything else you need, I doubt most people wo…
That makes sense, I agree with you. Though I still think there’s something to be said about the mobility of desktop computers today and saying outright that they are not mobile might not do justice to them. Edit: Especially with the rise of the Small form factor PC culture.
> Especially with the rise of the Small form factor PC culture.
Small cases have gotten pretty nice but if you have to carry around a separate screen to go with it then you might not end up any better off than if you had an all-in-one luggable computer.
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#324I prefer a desktop because: 1. I like big, big monitors. 2. I prefer a full size keyboard. 3. I prefer a separate mouse. 4. I prefer big freaking disk drives installed. 5. I put the desktop under my desk, and with a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse, there is much less of a snarl on my desk. 6. The desktop has an optical drive I still use. 7. The desktop has lots of USB ports and they're all in use. 8. I can repla…
I prefer to have my cake and eat it, so I have a nice beefy desktop, and a cheaper but nice laptop from which I RDP to my desktop.
Doesn't rdp feel super laggy/artifacty?
Or are you just doing ssh work?
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#325Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love desktops, but I have to admit that it's pretty great having a built-in UPS. To get the equivalent for my desktop is an extra $200+ and a big honking box that apparently will only last for 30 minutes when the power goes out.
> when the power goes out. Oh, are you from the US?
Sometimes I just want to move the plug from this socket to that socket. Sometimes just to make room for another wallwart.
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand Murphy's law, and other laws of the universe well!
Not only do I control the weather, but the stock market, too. If I buy a stock, it goes down. If I sell it, it goes up. Every time. Fortunately, after about 6 weeks or so, the market forgets I did a transaction, and things start moving my way. I'm forced to be a long term investor.
Now, if only you would let the rest of us know before you buy or sell stock ;-)
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#328If you care about performance you should not be using a laptop as your primary workstation. Period.
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trend in laptops has been for longer battery life and less heat. Since there haven't been any major breakthroughs in battery technology or mobile processor power (at least from Intel), this means lower power for processors and generally lower performance in general. Almost all laptops are using ultra low voltage Intel chips. And even the ones that don't, except for high end gaming laptops, thermally throttle ALL…
Eventually laptops will be so optimized for battery life, and display ads will be so aggressive, that you'll have to run chromium in the cloud and your thin client will be shut down the moment anyone accuses you of being a fascist. https://blog.cloudflare.com/browser-beta/
I laughed and shat my pants. Your comments is spot on.
Re: I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who knows little to nothing about UEFI except what I read on these types of blogs and comments, what do you mean that secure boot is no longer an issue? and that it's been a certificate requirement by microsoft?
Microsoft has always required (on x86, ARM is different) that for Windows logo certification Secure Boot must be able to be disabled, you must trust Microsoft’s CA and the third-party CA that they run (and that Red Hat/Ubuntu/Debian use to sign their builds) and that the user must be able to load their own keys. This means that any x86 device sold with UEFI Secure Boot can still boot Linux (or if it can’t, it’s not S…
That used to be the case for x86, but not anymore: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-stop-linux-older-...