Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351047
| From | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC |
| Date | 2016-04-20 20:51 +0000 |
| Organization | enemygadgets.com |
| Message-ID | <dnq8f9Fkjj2U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <dnp2kmFb1mcU1@mid.individual.net> |
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 >
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web