R
RayLopez99
ho hum. Recession, corporations not replacing PCs, and Windows 8 not being a compelling buy are reasons. Certainly it's not people preferring mobile platforms to PCs, unless you think a cell phone is a substitute for a PC, which for most people is not.
RL
J
John Doe
Davej said:
I agree with the market 100%.
Microsoft should forget about trying to capture the ultra portable
PC market, it should concentrate on making the desktop PC better.
The WIndows 8 interface is nothing new (minus the start page) and
its butt ugly if you use a high contrast scheme.
"Microsoft will have to make some very tough decisions moving
forward if it wants to help reinvigorate the PC market," O'Donnell
said
Yes, it needs to reinvigorate the PC market. Most users don't need
a desktop PC. Microsoft should stop attempting to monopolize the
ultra portable PC market. Instead, it should greatly expand
desktop PC functionality. It could start by aggressively making
speech input and output a reality for the majority of users. And
combine speech with automation/macroing/scripting. Leaving speech
up to ultra portable PC operating system makers is ridiculous.
Just because "we have room for a full size keyboard, we don't need
no speech input and output!" I've been arguing this since the
1990s. Speech is fundamental input and output. Obviously it's
going to be part of future computing devices.
J
John Doe
Just read the windows 8 interface called "retro" instead of
"metro"
"metro"
D
Davej
No, I do think that some people are pretending that a mobile device is
good enough for them. I don't see how -- unless all they do is e-mail,
and I would hate it for even that. With the poor economy the resulting
limited computer budgets are being spent on mobile devices. I too
think Windows 8 is not inspiring anyone except pad owners.
D
Davej
Saw this article... it makes several good points...
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/7-ways-bring-back-pc-1C9319686
M
Michael Black
I can certainly see it. Most people end up being consumers rather than
creators. We saw a different skew in the early days because the people
buying computers and getting online were a subset of the population. ONce
it became cheap enough, people started getting online "because my friends
have internet" which is a vastly different situation. People bought
computers because that's what they could get. There was already a subset
buing laptops rather than desktops because they wanted to be at the coffee
place when using their computer.
For just consuming, ie reading information (rather than producing it) a
tablet or smartphone is fine. You don't need a fancy system for buying
things. Twitter rose up for those people who couldn't write more than a
sentence, and of course if ideal for typing without a real keyboard.
My Blackberry Playbook tablet has 16gigs of storage, and 1gig of ram anda
dual 1GHz processor. Except for storage space, it beats any computer I
had up to this past October. And in a world when constant high speed
internet is the "norm", the average person doesn't need a lot of storage
space, they can just retrieve it again later.
The tablet is fine for all kinds of things. The first day of October, I
lost dialup suddenly and ended up with DSL, all in one day. I wasn't
prepared for the leap, and so all I had for most of that month was the
tablet. It was perfect, so long as I remained passive and voiceless,
which is what many people are. It was handier than that netbook I got a
few years ago, because the keyboard wasn't in the way for the passive use
of the internet. It was certainly handier for retrieving a lot of
information, since I could use it anywhere within range of the wifi
router.
I could figure out what that movie on tv was that I came into late, the
tablet wsa right at the tv set. No more having to go to the computer,
dial up the ISP, then wait for tv listings page to load. That's the sort
of thing a lot of people "really need the internet for" and they've got
it. There's no sense in buying a desktop when other things do most of
what is done by the desktop and the other things don't tie you to one
palce.
This isn't a sudden thing. PDAs were a wave for a while, had limitations,
then came back as smartphones or tablets. There was WebTV and other
limited internet workstations, aimed at being cheap, and they failed. But
not because people didn't want limited functions ("I dont' want to learn
an operating system, I just want my email") but because the implementation
was wrong.
Michael
J
John Doe
I see no mention of "speech" in the article.
F
Flasherly
You're probably right, only it's the start. Five, three or two years
from now and all that may be on a wristwatch (if you're eyes are good
enough to take it). Industry wise, there will still have to be upper
tier $800 devices, sure, but bottom-end feeders, such as myself,
there's a good chance of benefits to be derived.
I never got a cell phone. Effectively, it wasn't until the TELCO
conglomerates were priced out of POTS subscriptions rates, past
congress disallowing cell phone contractual shenanigans, and past the
median averages of people now carrying satellite-connectivity phones.
They called me up, said I'd need a ridiculous x-dollars to continue
with POTS, so I dropped out entirely to switch to $10 monthly cell
phone. So much more, as all I originally wanted was a beeper.
(Optionally more - all I do now is check IDs on the cell registered #
for free and call effectively for free over inet phone carriers
through a microphone hooked to my soundcard.)
Same deal for a smart phone, I figure. Competition heats up at some
future point, and my cell will get updated to a smart cell, blueberry,
or whatever the hell they want to call it. For free. Anything less
and I well might just not bite. (Matter of principle to someone who
can afford to wipe their ass with money. As 1st generation Greeks
say: They don't get that way for nothing;- their kids, the ones who
speak American, just say its the piss-down effect, pops.)
Figure all I have to watch is the per-minute high profit scams they
all would like to gear-up for as the climates tend change, angles on
charging dearly for information regardless of content and regardless
whether its equally coming off a land carrier wire coax leg called
fibre optic or redistributional means to satellite carrier feeds.