
Sorry, PC companies: you've apparently managed to perfect the PC - technologizer
http://techland.time.com/2013/04/11/sorry-pc-industry-youve-apparently-managed-to-perfect-the-pc/
======
simonsarris
I've _felt_ this way since I built my last desktop in 2008. I was sort-of
waiting for the "gee its time to upgrade" mark to roll around in 3 or 4 years,
but it hasn't happened yet. Any games I want to play it still runs very well,
and it still _feels_ very fast to me even compared to modern systems.

When my friends ask for advice I tell them if they like the keyboard and
screen, then its just plain hard to be disappointed with anything new.

I think I can pinpoint when this happened. It was the SSD. Getting an SSD was
the last upgrade I ever needed.

~~~

Something does worry me slightly about the large shift to tablets, which are
great devices in their own right. It's hard(er) to create new content on a
tablet, and I don't really want that becoming the default computer for any
generation.

I think its extremely healthy to have the lowest bar possible to go from "Hey
I like that" to "Can I do that? Can I make it myself?"

I think its something hackers, especially those with children should ask
themselves: _Would I still be me,_ if I had grown up around primarily content
consumption computing devices instead of more general purpose laptops and
desktops?

~~~
PakG1
What mitigation steps are you taking for when your SSD dies a horrible death?
Do you keep all your important files saved on another SSD or in the cloud? And
you'll just buy a new SSD and re-image? Or are you doing something else?

~~~
pyre
You're basically saying, "What's your backup solution?" Backup solutions are
needed even with spinning disks, it's nothing new to SSDs.

------
DigitalSea
There was an article posted yesterday in which IDC blames Microsoft and
Windows 8 in their report for the decline in PC sales but it's refreshing to
see proper journalism acknowledging that isn't solely the case and in-fact
Apple are selling fewer Mac's as well. The world is moving toward mobile
devices. PC's will always serve a purpose, but for some people a PC isn't
needed at all. As a developer and a bit of a designer, I couldn't picture
myself coding on a tablet nor designing on one (prototyping a design maybe).
It's a changing landscape, the likes of Google Glass give us a glimpse what a
future without desktop computer domination looks like.

The real issue here as touched upon in the article is the fact that new
computers don't really offer an advantage over older computers. Upgrading from
a 386 to a 486 back in the day was a reason to upgrade but my current machine
which is a spec'd out Core i7 will last me until it stops working in 4 to 5
years time. The only sector of computing probably still thriving is storage,
people probably upgrade their hard drives more than they do their computers.
Computing has reached a point where a CPU will last 4 years but a hard drive
only lasts as long as it has space left.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _As a developer and a bit of a designer, I couldn't picture myself coding on
> a tablet nor designing on one_

That pretty much describes me and the thing is that even though I still need a
PC for the same reasons as you, I haven't felt the desire to upgrade as
before. The reason? Pretty much exactly what the article states.

I used to upgrade every couple of years, and maybe slightly more frequently.
And, I would see significant performance/productivity gains per upgrade.

But, unlike before, I don't feel any performance "pain" with my current
desktop or mobile workstation. They are both 3-4 years old, Windows 7 64-bit
machines, and pack plenty of power/memory for my (heavy) use. So, I no longer
feel a need for better performance.

Seems there was a time when software (including the OS) pushed the hardware,
such that users were ever hungrier for more power. But, now it seems that
hardware has gotten out in front permanently for all intents and purposes. A
slightly above average consumer rig with sufficient memory can now handle just
about any task most folks will throw at it and with relatively no latency.

~~~
pmcg
There's that, and also the fact that cpus aren't getting faster as much as
they used to. I imagine if my cpu was still doubling in single-core power
every couple years that there would be dev tools that could make use of that
power and I would want to upgrade.

And games would definitely be doing much more as well.

But it's not practical to make software that will take twice as long to run if
cpus only speed up 10% every two years.

~~~
unclebucknasty
True. But, I think that's the other side of the coin. That is, I'm not so sure
we need faster CPUs as we once did.

Save for extreme gamers and other more esoteric applications (e.g. CAD, video
transcoding, etc.), most folks (i.e. the majority of the PC market) wouldn't
benefit much from a CPU that's much faster than those now commonly fitted to
the slightly-above-average consumer rig.

So, in general, I don't think software makers are holding back from making
software that pushes the hardware. I just think it's more difficult to push
today's more powerful hardware with typical software applications.

~~~
pyre
Significant NLP for UI purposes could push hardware.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Agreed. There are a host of other potential applications that _could_ push
hardware as well.

And, I do believe that if one were to have mass market appeal (i.e. broad
utility and demand), then we may see increased PC demand again (provided the
PC is the appropriate platform).

But, do you think that there are a significant number of such applications
waiting in the wings for PC hardware advances, or do you believe that perhaps
no such applications are ready for prime-time as of now?

------
AngryParsley
The sad thing about this is that tablets and phones aren't nearly as good at
content creation. A physical keyboard is still the fastest brain --> computer
interface in town. Also, tablets and phones aren't self-hosting. You can't
develop iOS apps on an iOS device. This makes it much harder for inexperienced
people to get into programming. Taking the plunge into programming will be
like deciding to buy an instrument and learning to play it.

While most people are never going to write software, those who do will be hurt
by the drop in PC sales. In the past, PC R&D costs were borne by the general
public. Now the public is moving to mobile devices, but developers still need
to buy full-fledged computers. Lower PC sales means costs will go up (since
R&D can't be spread across as many units) or manufacturers won't develop new
features as quickly.

There's some silver lining: the technologies used in tablets overlap quite a
bit with those used in laptops. Developers won't be stuck completely in the
past, but future PCs might be a little too tablet-y for their tastes. (This is
already happening with Windows 8).

~~~
unholyalliance
I don't think the price for PCs will matter. You can always grab a bluetooth
keyboard if you want to type something out, and there are even web based IDEs
available, which means that you're not limited to platform. Right now, you can
add a keyboard to your droid or iphone and start hacking away.

Additionally, the programming experience is in many ways focused too much on
the text based code itself, and less on the act of creation. It may be that
changing the PC/developer interface causes a revolution in the way that people
program.

~~~
unclebucknasty
But, if you start adding keyboards and other peripherals, aren't you
essentially recreating the PC?

~~~
unholyalliance
Yes, you are. The parent was arguing that PC hardware would become specialized
high $ developer only equipment, but as you say all you need to recreate a PC
from a mobile device are a couple of peripherals.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Ah, got it. My question/comment was essentially your point.

------
davidroberts
Last year I bought a new motherboard with an eight-core processor when my old
one died. Just a couple of day ago I realized that my experience with that set
up is exactly the same as the previous one I bought in 2008. The 1TB hard
drive I bought in 2009 is only half full. 16GB of RAM runs no better than 4.
Two cores humming along at 3000 mHz can handle everything I throw at them. The
others sit idle.

It's a huge change from ten years ago when I would anxiously await the day
when I could afford a new rig because I was already pushing my three-year old
one to its limit. Desktop PC technology has clearly reached the point where
its capabilities far exceed the needs of ordinary users.

~~~
PostOnce
The ordinary user argument. I argue it too, because it's true for now.
Facebook and email don't require 8 cores and a Kepler card and 32gb of RAM.
They require an $80 Pentium 4 machine. Youtube HD is about the only thing that
a normal person uses that'd push that, other than games.

The best counter-argument I've seen so far is that these modern machines are
capable of great but uninvented or unpopularized things. If developers give
users a reason to upgrade, they will. Nvidia wouldn't exist if game developers
hadn't made 3D games to take advantage of their hardware. Same with PCs,
developers have to give them a purpose.

I agree with that argument, and I hope someone capable steps up and makes it
happen.

------
bhauer
I still think the problem is the complete lack of innovation with desktop
displays for the past twelve years [1]. I very badly want a home computing
environment that features a ~50 inch high-DPI screen that I view at a distance
of approximately 2 to 3 feet.

I feel high resolution, high density displays would reinvigorate what we
currently call "desktop" computing.

[1] <http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key>

~~~
unholyalliance
50 inch high? Do you mean wide? Due to our physiology of two horizontal eyes,
we're more suited for a wide screen than one that high. I'm not convinced your
field of view could even s make use of an entire 50 inch high screen at that
distance.

~~~
heywire
I believe you misunderstood bhauer. 50 inch, high-DPI.

------
okr
On my dev computer at work i used to be able to integrate the whole
application environment. No more. To get a bigger and bigger machine,for me
that is not affordable. Not to forget the taken space, the produced heat and
the noise from this clumsy pc box.

So we started to build our own infrastructure, enabled virtualization and
giving everyone, what he needs. Growing as needed. It feels like a natural
development to me.

The modularization of racks becomes better: separate hot-swappable and inter-
connected cpu, fast ram, slower storage units. Feels like a pc itself again.
Maybe that shrinks and we get it at home again.

I like the idea of owning my own pc. But i think, it gets more and more
difficult to have everything on it. I will end up with a lot of servers
anyways.

On the other hand, a lot of people develop web applications. For that i dont
need much power.

-> i need more power -> some people dont need much power => maybe thats one reason why the pc market shrinks

:)

------
DanBC
Are they taking into account global economic crisis?

Because I'm pretty sure that businesses were the main buyers of new computers,
and that they're not going to buy new computers unless they really need to in
this climate.

I agree that Vista, when launched, put a lot of people off.

~~~
thirsteh
I think you are overestimating how bad the "global economic crisis" is.
Besides, computers are vital to many companies--they're not an expendable
"luxury."

~~~
DanBC
But they've bought the computers. Where they would have been replacing
everything every year now they're replacing every three years, and they're not
replacing everything, they're shifting the machines down through the ranks.

~~~
ams6110
Even in boom times I've never seen a company replace desktops every year.
Three years has been pretty typical and continues to be so.

------
georgemcbay
The PC (or the Mac) is, of course, a long way from perfect, but you can count
me as another data point for the theory that hardware pretty much reached
"good enough for just about anything" a few years back, and I'm saying that as
someone who is a programmer and a gamer, so for Joe Q. Public running Office
and Chrome this point was reached even sooner.

Core 2 Duo w/ 4 gigs of RAM was, I'd guess, basically the tipping point for
normal users, Nehalem w/ 8 gigs of RAM, GeForce 4xx and an SSD for the system
disk was the tipping point for people like me.

I used to upgrade my system yearly (buying parts off Newegg, reusing existing
bits where they made sense to do so) but now it is more like every three years
and growing each time.

There are, of course, lots of ways PC manufacturers can turn this around with
increased novel input methods, more hybrid devices and especially an increased
focus on higher resolution screens (which has a multiplier effect because if
you truly boost your on-screen resolution, you'll soon start feeling cramped
by your CPU, GPU and memory again), but the days of tossing out more powerful
CPUs, GPUs and a bit more RAM (and then calling it a day as far as new
features are concerned) are over.

~~~
tracker1
When I upgraded from my C2D to a first gen i7 was the first time I didn't feel
pain and the need to upgrade... I did go with an SSD at that time, and spent
about $1500 on that desktop iirc (main case, not monitors, keyboard etc)... I
recently replaced it with AMD's top 8-core option, which works better for me
than an i3/i5 at that price.

I only upgraded because my system was unstable, and it was likely the
motherboard (which I would have to replace the mb+cpu) or the power supply,
either way pretty much the same effort/cost as upgrading both. New system runs
great.. the irony is most of my non-work stuff gets done on my htpc in the
living room, or my nexus tablet. My c2d macbook pro, and my desktop aren't
used that much.

------
Everlag
I must say, despite the gloomy outlook, isn't the fact that most of the market
is running on old machines not a bad one?

Why do you buy a new pc? Why, of course, to do something your old one
couldn't. Now, you have six year old consoles so your standard port won't be
incredibly pretty or taxing.

Give it a months after the launch of the next-gen consoles and PC sales should
see an uptake as people start buying the awesome looking ports that are being
crapped out in the dozens by the big AAA devshops.

While it won't fix the market, it should have a serious effect upon the
profitability of a pc business. Combined with the fact that your tablet, which
was nearing the current console power, is now looking pretty bad that is even
more reason for the market to keep on chugging with consumers realizing their
all in one isn't the beauty they thought it was.

You guys say you haven't upgraded in years because you can run the new games
on a very decent level? Just you wait.

------
hayksaakian
I used to decry notebooks/laptops as a way to get "real work" done, but
nowadays they are commonplace.

Beyond work, everything else is easier/better on a tablet/phone.

At this point the only reason I have a windows PC any more is for "HD" gaming
and the occasional windows only software.

------
drewcoo
I would guess that Windows Blue is another data point to support the thesis.
Windows sales have traditionally been tied to hardware sales. With declining
hardware sales it seems like a way to try to keep milking the cash cow.

And . . . when I Googled for a link to info about Blue for context, lo and
behold, I found this:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732374100457841...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323741004578416902650278178.html)

------
jpxxx
Basically, PCs are dumb, boring work terminals for old people.

Children coming of computing age when the iPhone was released are now 9 years
old, perhaps on their second or third portable gaming device, and lobbying
their parents for an iPhone.

What on Earth would they possibly want a slow, dirty, heavy keyboard computer
for? You can't even take a picture with it unless it's an Apple.

~~~
SkyMarshal
A keyboard? How quaint.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=JS...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=JSmGjB-G6v8)

