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.
>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.
Part of the reason that software isn't pushing up against hardware limitations as hard anymore are the relatively old and underpowered current generation consoles. Games were traditionally on the front of the hardware curve, but over the last few years only a small proportion of the game market has had fundamentally high hardware requirements.
It'll be interesting to see what upcoming console releases will do for the the hardware market.
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.
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.
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?
There is a certain class of developer where something like the ASUS transformer is perfect.
They can:
- Play all sorts of media
- Download things with utorrent
- Browse the web with webkit
- Access terminals,
- Use SSH,
- Write their PHP websites with a highlighting text editor
- Edit images
Getting all of that in a package that is:
- Under 2 pounds
- Has 10 hour battery life
- Is $300 if you shop around, almost disposable.
- Backed up on the cloud
Add a mSATA SSD and more RAM and it would work with even more developers, photographers and other professionals. Student who just needs to write papers and use facebook? Especially them too.
To me the Asus Transformer is more of a netbook than a tablet as it is being marketed as. It's about the same size as an Acer Aspire One which I owned a few years ago, battery life sucked though. To me a tablet is a device without a keyboard, a device with a keyboard is merely a netbook or depending on screen size a laptop. I could definitely see myself coding on a Transformer, but I have this thing where staring at a small screen gives me the feeling of tunnel vision and I feel as though I can't concentrate and it distracts me. There's nothing better than coding in Sublime Text full screen on a 27" monitor.
Side note: the Asus Transformer is a beast, you don't get any better for that kind of price. I'm going to buy one for the commute to and from work on the train.
I expect that tablets will one day get the knack of supporting multiple resolutions and multiple monitors, and serve just as a secondary input device when on your desk.
I'd go even farther than that: for a lot of people, a PC is something they never really wanted. For a long time it was the only practical way to get the things they did want: Email, YouTube, online shopping, social media, music, the web in general. Now that those things can be done, and done well, from a phone or a tablet, and now that you can watch Netflix on your TV with a game console or even directly, a PC is just clutter.
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.