Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350942 > unrolled thread

The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:06 +0100
    Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:57 +0100
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 13:49 +0200
        Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:07 -0400
          Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 19:12 +0200
            Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 11:57 -0700
              Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:42 +0200
                Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 14:55 -0700
                  Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:04 +0200
                    Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 17:08 -0700
                      Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 09:00 +0200
                        Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 17:00 +0000
                          Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 19:05 +0200
              Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:07 -0700
            Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:09 -0400
              The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-22 11:55 -0700
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:27 +0200
                  Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 17:55 -0400
                    Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:05 +0200
                      Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:20 -0400
                        Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:01 +0200
                          Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 19:11 -0400
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-20 07:05 -0500
        Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 12:28 +0000
      Re: The subjective preferences of the dying minority Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 13:58 +0100
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:18 -0400
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 17:09 +0000
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 10:38 -0700
        Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:11 +0100
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0000
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-20 15:53 -0500
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 22:01 +0000
        Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:14 +0100
          Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-22 16:37 -0600

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#351337 — Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds.

Richard King wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:05:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> Richard King wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:27:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to Peter Köhlmann ):
>>>>>> > So how do you propose being able to copy 3.5 GB in 3.5 seconds when
>>>>>> > the drive needs 7 seconds just to read the data? Much less write it
>>>>>> > again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What will you do when Relf posts a vid of it happening in 3.5
>>>>>> seconds?
>>>>> 
>>>>> As it turns out, the first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds;
>>>> 
>>>> It naturally does. You can't bypass the physical limitations of the
>>>> drive
>>>> 
>>>>> subsequent copies take less than 3 seconds.
>>>> 
>>>> Wrong. They /seem/ to happen in 3 seconds. In reality, you are
>>>> reading/writing to buffers in RAM which happened to get filled with the
>>>> first read/write. The real read/write still takes those 11 seconds,
>>>> only it happens in the background now. Trip the power supply when
>>>> windows says it is done and see your data vanish in a puff of smoke, as
>>>> it is not yet written
>>>> 
>>>>> I don't know why or how.
>>>> 
>>>> Naturally you don't. You are a windows user. In short, you are stupid
>>>> 
>>>>> I've got 16 gigs of 1.9 GigHz RAM.
>>>> 
>>>> See? Lots of buffer. Even windows by now is using at least part of the
>>>> RAM in a intelligent way (as linux did much longer). Which is: Fill all
>>>> RAM not needed by Programs and their data with stuff buffered from
>>>> disk. Chances are, it will be needed again
>>> 
>>> One word:
>>> Cache.
>> 
>> Other word: Buffer
>> 
>> And now go playing on the highway
> 
> Buffer is sometimes referred to buffer cache.
> You know what I meant.
> 
> Let's make it simple so even you can understand.
> 

Idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351339 — Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 01:01:15 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Richard King wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:05:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> Richard King wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:27:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to Peter Köhlmann ):
>>>>>>> > So how do you propose being able to copy 3.5 GB in 3.5 seconds when
>>>>>>> > the drive needs 7 seconds just to read the data? Much less write it
>>>>>>> > again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What will you do when Relf posts a vid of it happening in 3.5
>>>>>>> seconds?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As it turns out, the first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds;
>>>>> 
>>>>> It naturally does. You can't bypass the physical limitations of the
>>>>> drive
>>>>> 
>>>>>> subsequent copies take less than 3 seconds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wrong. They /seem/ to happen in 3 seconds. In reality, you are
>>>>> reading/writing to buffers in RAM which happened to get filled with the
>>>>> first read/write. The real read/write still takes those 11 seconds,
>>>>> only it happens in the background now. Trip the power supply when
>>>>> windows says it is done and see your data vanish in a puff of smoke, as
>>>>> it is not yet written
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't know why or how.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Naturally you don't. You are a windows user. In short, you are stupid
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've got 16 gigs of 1.9 GigHz RAM.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See? Lots of buffer. Even windows by now is using at least part of the
>>>>> RAM in a intelligent way (as linux did much longer). Which is: Fill all
>>>>> RAM not needed by Programs and their data with stuff buffered from
>>>>> disk. Chances are, it will be needed again
>>>> 
>>>> One word:
>>>> Cache.
>>> 
>>> Other word: Buffer
>>> 
>>> And now go playing on the highway
>> 
>> Buffer is sometimes referred to buffer cache.
>> You know what I meant.
>> 
>> Let's make it simple so even you can understand.
>> 
> 
> Idiot

Snipping and running just like a true Linux "advocate".
Trying to protect your track record of being almost 100 percent
incorrect on technical issues?
Me thinks so.

You should head on back to the village square where they pay you to
make balloons for the kids.

-- 
RK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350960 — Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone.

Homer wrote:

> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>
>> It takes 3.5 seconds to copy a 3.5 gig file.
>
>That's great, but the vast majority of the market simply doesn't care.
>
>You are part of a dying minority.

Relf is actually more technically advanced, than most of us are.  The
metal plate in his head acts as a 4G cellular antenna.

-- 
"'Easy to read' is good for TV, not computer science."  -  Jeff Relf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350963 — Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone.

In article <p0sehbpsgqj62ftmibutumifrfs90q2ov4@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > > It takes 3.5 seconds to copy a 3.5 gig file.
> > 
> > Homer:
> > That's great, but the vast majority of the market simply doesn't
> > care.
> 
> > You are part of a dying minority.
> 
> Relf is actually more technically advanced, than most of us are. The
> metal plate in his head acts as a 4G cellular antenna.

Also as a faraday cage, trapping any actual thoughts from escaping :)

-- 
Sandman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350966 — Re: The subjective preferences of the dying minority

On Wednesday 20/04/2016 12:26 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>      
> You ( Homer ) replied ( to me ):
>>> It takes me 3.5 seconds to copy a 3.5 gig file.
>> 
>> That's great, but the vast majority of the market simply doesn't care.
>>
>> You are part of a dying minority.
> 
> It's a bell curve, always, a normal distribution; see:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Empirical_Rule.PNG
> 
> In the middle, people are rolling 6's and 7's ( "smart" phones );
> I'm rolling double sixes ( a Desktop PC ), 3 sigma.

No, actually you're just exercising a subjective preference, which is
radically different to the majority's preference.

The majority is inevitably destined to win, as the commercial viability
of increasingly unpopular technology rapidly diminishes toward zero.

Eventually your preferences will be relegated to the status of "retro
computing", at which point the usefulness of copying your 3.5GB file in
3.5 seconds will be moot, unless your hardware can somehow also
accommodate all the other features demanded by the majority of the
market (such as mobility and long battery life). Sadly those features
are mutually incompatible and, given the choice, the majority clearly
prefers the latter.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350981

On 4/20/2016 6:06 AM, Homer wrote:
> Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows PC.

Unbelievable.  Year after year after year, the same nonsense about the 
desktop (and you hope Windows) being doomed.

Give it up: MS will long, long, long outlive you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351017

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:06:15 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows
> PC.
> 
> 1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet
> 
> 'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
> opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL
> providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
> saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
> suffer plummeting sales.
> 
> "Americans’ rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
> coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
> McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
> development.
> 
> "At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
> devices in their daily lives."'
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/
one_in_five_us_homes_now_mobileonly
> 
> 2. Hey Windows 10, weren't you supposed to help PC sales?
> 
> 'Very few if any ever thought Windows 10 would truly reinvigorate the PC
> industry, and they were right - IDC has pulled down forecasts on
> traditional device sales for 2016.
> 
> The analyst has clipped unit expectations by a couple of per cent,
> claiming global notebooks and desktops shipments into channels are now
> on course to decline 5.4 per cent to 260.9 million.
> 
> That’ll equate to 156.2 million portable PCs and 104.7 million
> desk-based units for the year if the beanies are right, but these things
> tend to be a moving feast and further corrections are likely.
> 
> In the medium term, things aren’t going to get markedly better either -
> over the next five years compound annual growth rates of minus 0.5 per
> cent are predicted.
> 
> The operating system can’t shoulder sole responsibility for unit sales
> to date or the crappy outlook but it has played a part, and was fingered
> by HP Inc last summer and again more recently.'
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/14/pc_sales_forecasts
> 
> 3. Intel literally decimates workforce: 12,000 will be axed, CFO shifts
> to sales
> 
> 'Intel will axe 12,000 employees globally – more than one in ten of its
> workforce – as it moves further away from being a PC chip company.
> The layoffs are among the biggest into the company's history, and come
> as PC industry continues to tank harder than Intel expected.
> 
> The Santa Clara-based biz sees a lot of growth in the worlds of data
> centers, memory, and the internet of things – anything that doesn't look
> like a traditional desktop computer, the sales of which are dwindling.
> As a result, fewer processors for normal PCs, laptops and tablets are
> needed, and so Intel is rejigging itself to focus more on these growth
> areas – which will mean losing some workers.'
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/intel_q1_fy2016_job_cuts

Since the WinTrolls want to hide this -- and try to change the subject 
with another Subject Line, I though it deserved repeating.

I saw the Intel layoff news last night. Had no idea how quickly the 
Windows monopoly desktop was shrinking into inconsequence (if that's a 
word).

Personally I'll be using Linux PCs for quite a while yet. But I'm an old 
fart stuck in my ways.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351024

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:06:15 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
> > Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows
> > PC.
> > 
> > 1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet
> > 
> > 'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
> > opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL
> > providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
> > saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
> > suffer plummeting sales.
> > 
> > "Americans' rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
> > coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
> > McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
> > development.
> > 
> > "At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
> > devices in their daily lives."'
> > 
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/
> one_in_five_us_homes_now_mobileonly
> > 
> > 2. Hey Windows 10, weren't you supposed to help PC sales?
> > 
> > 'Very few if any ever thought Windows 10 would truly reinvigorate the PC
> > industry, and they were right - IDC has pulled down forecasts on
> > traditional device sales for 2016.
> > 
> > The analyst has clipped unit expectations by a couple of per cent,
> > claiming global notebooks and desktops shipments into channels are now
> > on course to decline 5.4 per cent to 260.9 million.
> > 
> > That'll equate to 156.2 million portable PCs and 104.7 million
> > desk-based units for the year if the beanies are right, but these things
> > tend to be a moving feast and further corrections are likely.
> > 
> > In the medium term, things aren't going to get markedly better either -
> > over the next five years compound annual growth rates of minus 0.5 per
> > cent are predicted.
> > 
> > The operating system can't shoulder sole responsibility for unit sales
> > to date or the crappy outlook but it has played a part, and was fingered
> > by HP Inc last summer and again more recently.'
> > 
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/14/pc_sales_forecasts
> > 
> > 3. Intel literally decimates workforce: 12,000 will be axed, CFO shifts
> > to sales
> > 
> > 'Intel will axe 12,000 employees globally - more than one in ten of its
> > workforce - as it moves further away from being a PC chip company.
> > The layoffs are among the biggest into the company's history, and come
> > as PC industry continues to tank harder than Intel expected.
> > 
> > The Santa Clara-based biz sees a lot of growth in the worlds of data
> > centers, memory, and the internet of things - anything that doesn't look
> > like a traditional desktop computer, the sales of which are dwindling.
> > As a result, fewer processors for normal PCs, laptops and tablets are
> > needed, and so Intel is rejigging itself to focus more on these growth
> > areas - which will mean losing some workers.'
> > 
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/intel_q1_fy2016_job_cuts
> 
> Since the WinTrolls want to hide this -- and try to change the subject 
> with another Subject Line, I though it deserved repeating.
> 
> I saw the Intel layoff news last night. Had no idea how quickly the 
> Windows monopoly desktop was shrinking into inconsequence (if that's a 
> word).
> 
> Personally I'll be using Linux PCs for quite a while yet. But I'm an old 
> fart stuck in my ways.
> 
> -- 
> Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

Because apparently only Windows PCs have Intel CPUs...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351234

On 20/04/2016 18:38, Me Sham wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:06:15 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows
>>> PC.
>>>
>>> 1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet
>>>
>>> 'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
>>> opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL
>>> providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
>>> saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
>>> suffer plummeting sales.
>>>
>>> "Americans' rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
>>> coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
>>> McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
>>> development.
>>>
>>> "At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
>>> devices in their daily lives."'
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/
>> one_in_five_us_homes_now_mobileonly
>>>
>>> 2. Hey Windows 10, weren't you supposed to help PC sales?
>>>
>>> 'Very few if any ever thought Windows 10 would truly reinvigorate the PC
>>> industry, and they were right - IDC has pulled down forecasts on
>>> traditional device sales for 2016.
>>>
>>> The analyst has clipped unit expectations by a couple of per cent,
>>> claiming global notebooks and desktops shipments into channels are now
>>> on course to decline 5.4 per cent to 260.9 million.
>>>
>>> That'll equate to 156.2 million portable PCs and 104.7 million
>>> desk-based units for the year if the beanies are right, but these things
>>> tend to be a moving feast and further corrections are likely.
>>>
>>> In the medium term, things aren't going to get markedly better either -
>>> over the next five years compound annual growth rates of minus 0.5 per
>>> cent are predicted.
>>>
>>> The operating system can't shoulder sole responsibility for unit sales
>>> to date or the crappy outlook but it has played a part, and was fingered
>>> by HP Inc last summer and again more recently.'
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/14/pc_sales_forecasts
>>>
>>> 3. Intel literally decimates workforce: 12,000 will be axed, CFO shifts
>>> to sales
>>>
>>> 'Intel will axe 12,000 employees globally - more than one in ten of its
>>> workforce - as it moves further away from being a PC chip company.
>>> The layoffs are among the biggest into the company's history, and come
>>> as PC industry continues to tank harder than Intel expected.
>>>
>>> The Santa Clara-based biz sees a lot of growth in the worlds of data
>>> centers, memory, and the internet of things - anything that doesn't look
>>> like a traditional desktop computer, the sales of which are dwindling.
>>> As a result, fewer processors for normal PCs, laptops and tablets are
>>> needed, and so Intel is rejigging itself to focus more on these growth
>>> areas - which will mean losing some workers.'
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/intel_q1_fy2016_job_cuts
>>
>> Since the WinTrolls want to hide this -- and try to change the subject
>> with another Subject Line, I though it deserved repeating.
>>
>> I saw the Intel layoff news last night. Had no idea how quickly the
>> Windows monopoly desktop was shrinking into inconsequence (if that's a
>> word).
>>
>> Personally I'll be using Linux PCs for quite a while yet. But I'm an old
>> fart stuck in my ways.
>>
>> --
>> Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
>
> Because apparently only Windows PCs have Intel CPUs...
>

We can always rely on ronb for some dumbass comments......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351047

Homer wrote:

> Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows
> PC.


Microshaft has also stated windopws 10 is its last Osen.
In 9 years it will end support for all its OSen.

In 4 years all government office in China will be windopws free
thanks to NSA trolls.

Windopws bash clone does everything Linux will do except run Linux
and immune you to windopws insecurity, so microhaft bash crap will
keylog, worm and viri you in no time because its still using
windopws. May as well switch 100% to Linux instead of clinging
in there with microshaft crap.

Likely all the major manufacturers will switch to Linux
at this rate soon.


> 1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet
> 
> 'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
> opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL
> providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
> saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
> suffer plummeting sales.
> 
> "Americans’ rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
> coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
> McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
> development.
> 
> "At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
> devices in their daily lives."'
> 
> 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/one_in_five_us_homes_now_mobileonly
> 
> 2. Hey Windows 10, weren't you supposed to help PC sales?
> 
> 'Very few if any ever thought Windows 10 would truly reinvigorate the PC
> industry, and they were right - IDC has pulled down forecasts on
> traditional device sales for 2016.
> 
> The analyst has clipped unit expectations by a couple of per cent,
> claiming global notebooks and desktops shipments into channels are now
> on course to decline 5.4 per cent to 260.9 million.
> 
> That’ll equate to 156.2 million portable PCs and 104.7 million
> desk-based units for the year if the beanies are right, but these things
> tend to be a moving feast and further corrections are likely.
> 
> In the medium term, things aren’t going to get markedly better either -
> over the next five years compound annual growth rates of minus 0.5 per
> cent are predicted.
> 
> The operating system can’t shoulder sole responsibility for unit sales
> to date or the crappy outlook but it has played a part, and was fingered
> by HP Inc last summer and again more recently.'
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/14/pc_sales_forecasts
> 
> 3. Intel literally decimates workforce: 12,000 will be axed, CFO shifts
> to sales
> 
> 'Intel will axe 12,000 employees globally – more than one in ten of its
> workforce – as it moves further away from being a PC chip company.
> The layoffs are among the biggest into the company's history, and come
> as PC industry continues to tank harder than Intel expected.
> 
> The Santa Clara-based biz sees a lot of growth in the worlds of data
> centers, memory, and the internet of things – anything that doesn't look
> like a traditional desktop computer, the sales of which are dwindling.
> As a result, fewer processors for normal PCs, laptops and tablets are
> needed, and so Intel is rejigging itself to focus more on these growth
> areas – which will mean losing some workers.'
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/intel_q1_fy2016_job_cuts
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351048

On 2016-04-20, Homer <usenet@slated.org> wrote:
> Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows PC.
>
> 1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet
>
> 'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
> opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL

   Well, then that means they can't "cut the cord" with their cable provider
as mobile-only is pants in general and is prohibitively expensive for cable
avoidance. You will blow your mobile cap by the end of the weekend.

> providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
> saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
> suffer plummeting sales.

    PCs can last indefinitely.

    If not for the fact that my old machine is noisy, there would be no 
real reason for me to consider replacing it. So, sluggish sales in a 
saturated market isn't anything to get excited about.

    Even tablet sales are slowing down.


>
> "Americans’ rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
> coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
> McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
> development.
>
> "At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
> devices in their daily lives."'

   ...all of which can be adequately fed by a single cheaper and faster pipe.

[deletia]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351072

JEDIDIAH wrote:


>     PCs can last indefinitely.

10 years average.

The silicon flows (because it is a glass)
and eventually the damage is too great.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351235

On 20/04/2016 23:01, 7 wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>
>>      PCs can last indefinitely.
>
> 10 years average.
>
> The silicon flows (because it is a glass)
> and eventually the damage is too great.
>

WTF? I mean just WTF????

Are you seriously saying that any silicon device will fail after 10 years?

Jeez, your idiocy knows no bounds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351330

On 04/22/16 05:14, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 20/04/2016 23:01, 7 wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>> PCs can last indefinitely.
>>
>> 10 years average.
>>
>> The silicon flows (because it is a glass)
>> and eventually the damage is too great.
>>
>
> WTF? I mean just WTF????
>
> Are you seriously saying that any silicon device will fail after 10 years?
>
> Jeez, your idiocy knows no bounds.

This one of his comments is just weird.
He doesn't know anything about semiconductor physics.
When transistors first came to market the manufacturers stated that a 
transistor should be able to last about 25,000 years before failure. 
The circuit design that isn't precise can lower that by many factors.
Plus the new LED light bulbs for home lighting already say that they'll 
last for 25 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web