Live data from Hacker News

The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

idiallo.com

21–30 of 401 posts

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#23
"For what" is the obvious question. Web development with a remote testing environment, office applications, email, web browsing - sure, a Core 2 Duo is more than good enough if your software environment is kept in order. Audio / video / photoshop, gaming, developing software that does math, data analysis - you can never get fast enough.

The limiting factor is if your computer's feedback loop is tighter than your brain's perception loop. If you can type a letter and the letter appears, your computer is fast enough for word processing. But, if you can run a data analysis job and it's done before you release the "enter" key, it just means you should really be doing better analyses over more data. Certain use cases grow like goldfish to the limits of their environment.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#24
post #19

the article is falling under fallacy of assuming the wrong sample. Of course the author wouldn't buy new PC because he can upgrade his old one. Heck, almost any tech-savvy people can in fact upgrade or build one from the scratch. If not, chances are that you know at least one person who can help you and after the first time, it just gets easier. the PC market isn't dead , it is slowly receding and it won't stop. It's…

For many of the most common business and consumer applications (web browsing, using MS Office), adding a more powerful computer just doesn't do that much for you. Power users will upgrade their old machines, but most users will just keep using them.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#25
Below is what I feel is a relevant excerpt from Text of SXSW2013, Closing Remarks by Bruce Sterling [1]:

--- Why does nobody talk about them? Because nobody wants them, that’s why. Imagine somebody brings you a personal desktop computer here at South By, they’re like bringing it in on a trolley.

“Look, this device is personal. It computes and it’s totally personal, just for you, and you alone. It doesn’t talk to the internet. No sociality. You can’t share any of the content with anybody. Because it’s just for you, it’s private. It’s yours. You can compute with it. Nobody will know! You can process text, and draw stuff, and do your accounts. It’s got a spreadsheet. No modem, no broadband, no Cloud, no Facebook, Google, Amazon, no wireless. This is a dream machine. Because it’s personal and it computes. And it sits on the desk. You personally compute with it. You can even write your own software for it. It faithfully executes all your commands.”

So — if somebody tried to give you this device, this one I just made the pitch for, a genuinely Personal Computer, it’s just for you — Would you take it?

Even for free?

Would you even bend over and pick it up?

Isn’t it basically the cliff house in Walnut Canyon? Isn’t it the stone box?

“Look, I have my own little stone box here in this canyon! I can grow my own beans and corn. I harvest some prickly pear. I’m super advanced here.”

I really think I’m going to outlive the personal computer. And why not? I outlived the fax machine. I did. I was alive when people thought it was amazing to have a fax machine. Now I’m alive, and people think it’s amazing to still have a fax machine.

Why not the personal computer? Why shouldn’t it vanish like the cliff people vanished? Why shouldn’t it vanish like Steve Jobs vanished?

It’s not that we return to the status quo ante: don’t get me wrong. It’s not that once we had a nomad life, then we live in high-tech stone dwellings, and we return to chase the bison like we did before.

No: we return into a different kind of nomad life. A kind of Alan Kay world, where computation has vanished into the walls and ceiling, as he said many, many years ago.

Then we look back in nostalgia at the Personal Computer world. It’s not that we were forced out of our stone boxes in the canyon. We weren’t driven away by force. We just mysteriously left. It was like the waning of the moon.

They were too limiting, somehow. They computed, but they just didn’t do enough for us. They seemed like a fantastic way forward, but somehow they were actually getting in the way of our experience.

All these machines that tore us away from lived experience, and made us stare into the square screens or hunch over the keyboards, covered with their arcane, petroglyph symbols. Control Dingbat That, backslash R M this. We never really understood that. Not really. ---

[1]: http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2013/04/text-of-sxsw2...

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#26

I don't know which conclusion I had about this was more useful: 1) I don't need to buy a new PC every two years anymore 2) Someone should make a tablet with slots so it can be upgraded like a PC

" 2) Someone should make a tablet with slots so it can be upgraded like a PC"

Wouldn't that be a Windows 8 convertible laptop with a touchscreen?[1][2] Once you put expansion options on it you start compromising mobility.

[1] http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/product/dell-dell-xps-12-5-ul...

[2] http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/product/hewlett-packard-hp-sp...

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#27
post #4

> When your processor is too slow, buy a new CPU, or you get a new heat sink and over clock it The motherboards for PCs built 5 years ago are completely different from those built today, and the CPU sockets have changed every other year. New processors from Intel will be soldered on. The performance of a PC from five years ago is probably adequate for web browsing and office tasks. For anything more demanding, the ad…

The performance of a PC from five years ago is probably adequate for web browsing and office tasks. For anything more demanding, the advances in power consumption, execution efficiency and process node are huge leaps from five years ago.

In 2000, a three-year-old PC couldn't run modern games. Today, a three-year-old PC simply forces you to switch to lower graphical settings. The race for hogging all the hardware resources did slow down in the past years, which is a good thing for consumers.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#28
It's not that people don't need a new PC because their old PC does just as good a job as it did 5 years ago. It's also not because your average mom and pop are upgrading their own rigs themselves that new PC sales are slow.

It's that when tablets hit the scene, people realized they don't need their PC for 90% of what they do on a "computer". Email, social networking, shopping, music, video etc.

Us old geeks who swap hardware, play PC games, tweak OS settings and generally use yesterday's general purpose PC will be the ones remaining who keep buying new hardware and complete machines.

The general public meanwhile will only buy a PC if their tablet/smartphone/phablet needs expand beyond those platforms.

The market will shrink but it will turn more "pro". The quicker MS evolves into a modern IBM the better.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#29

I don't know which conclusion I had about this was more useful: 1) I don't need to buy a new PC every two years anymore 2) Someone should make a tablet with slots so it can be upgraded like a PC

I think #2 is not done so they force you to buy a new tablet every 2 years.

Re: The PC is not dead, we just don't need new ones

#30
post #13
post #8

I built a dev/gaming machine back in early 2010. It's stout, but not a ridiculously expensive (~$1,000) behemoth. The only thing I've done since then is toss some more RAM in so I could have two sets of triple channel DDR3 instead of one. I can still run just about any modern AAA game at the highest settings. The only time I felt like I've needed an upgrade is while playing Planetside 2, which is/was very CPU bound f…

~$1,000 sounds quite cheap for a gaming machine which can still run any modern game at highest settings. I remember I built mine at about the same time (2010) for $2500, top notch video card, fastest cpu, lots of ram, but its 2013 now and I can not say that it runs any modern game at highest settings.

It was surprisingly easy. I'm not saying you over-paid, but for $2,500 I could have built something pretty ridiculous. Most of my money went into processor and GPU, which are typically your two big ticket items.

I trolled around Newegg looking for upper-middle tier components with a higher quantity of good reviews. A lot of the times you won't see a lot of the recently released stuff with useful reviews, so some of the parts were actually circa 2009'ish instead of being latest and greatest (2010).

I didn't splurge for a super expensive case, and my power supply wasn't modular (making it pretty cheap). i7 with a decent mobo. Went AMD for the GPU since (at the time) they were the best bang for buck. Got some cheaper G.SKILL 1600mhz DDR3 RAM (which has worked awesomely for me) for next to nothing, and I was ready to roll.

Post reply on HN