PC sales Suffer Biggest Slump in years

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What could you do with it that you can't do with the command prompt in Windows?

You could run just a small handful of carefully selected programs and have all the computer resources for yourself. With the newer operating systems you have obscene numbers of things running that you can't do anything about [without lots of work].

I used to run a SCADA HMI system on a 486 on DOS with Windows 3.11 interface. The only things running were mouse driver, network card driver (very simple, because the very expensive card took care of most of communication stuff), driver for communication with special PLC communication hardware, and of course said SCADA HMI (database, communication, event manager, operator interface screens, logging system, alarm processing ...).
Several [PC] generations later on an XP you needed magnitude more memory and magnitude faster processor to run similar visualization and the screens with hundreds of updates had markedly slower response time, because everything had to run through additional layers, like OPC server, every single animation on the screen was an OLE object that had to go various hops to display value from PLC memory block ...

So, in the good old times you had much better control over what runs on your computer. You can do similar things today, it is just *much* more hassle to configure things and switch off boatloads of stuff you do not want and do not need.


I know, much of stuff you hear on the net is just nostalgia (people forget the bad stuff and only remember the good bits and even that is seen unrealistically).
When you have to go in and actually *use* a very old system (like an old, but still running SCADA HMI system on a 486 computer, where loading of 100MB of stuff from a ZIP drive connected to LPT port takes 60 minutes) you appreciate how much hardware moved forward.
You would simply kill any old PC (DOS or WfW era stuff) if you tried to use it with a large Calibre library or have a look at an SD card with 1000 20megapixel photos on it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

What no OS2? or CPM

Luck;
Ken

Never had a CP/M machine - no apps software. (Nor an OS/2 machine either, or and Apple II/III/68* Mac, or a Commordore C64, or...)

[rkw]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Anybody who says that always assumes everybody has a spare retail Windows version lying around, which is often not the case.

Starting with moving MS Virtual PC to free with Win7 Pro you can d/l a free copy of XP direct from MS. Or have they they discontinued that?

[Katsunami]

No, they haven't. But, afaik, this version of XP only runs on Virtual PC on Win 7. Pro. Most / many people only have Win 7 Home Premium.

I wonder, could I boot the Virtal PC VM using an imaging program, and dump an image outside it? Then, image it back into as VirtualBox VM. Or something...

[kacir]

Originally Posted by rkw

Starting with moving MS Virtual PC to free with Win7 Pro you can d/l a free copy of XP direct from MS. Or have they they discontinued that?

You can still download and install it. Or at least you could about a month ago when I installed it at work. But it is tied to your installation of Windows 7 PROFESSIONAL and you have to use Microsoft Virtual PC. But, you shouldn't look into the mouth of the gift horse ;-)

[afv011]

Apparently there's a section of the PC market that is doing pretty well:

Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Chromebook was dismissed as a bare-bones laptop with limited appeal when it debuted two years ago. Now it’s defying skeptics and gaining share as the rest of the personal-computer market shrinks.

Chromebooks have in just the past eight months snagged 20 percent to 25 percent of the U.S. market for laptops that cost less than $300, according to NPD Group Inc. The devices, which have a full keyboard and get regular software updates from Google, are the fastest-growing part of the PC industry based on price, NPD said.

Source

[Graham]

While the figures for the sub $300 market are a little targeted, it's very interesting that since last year the Chromebook market share in the US for the whole of the laptop/netbook market has gone from 1 to 2 percent last year up to 4 to 5 percent so far this year.

Although still a small number, that growth does look significant - if it continues.

And the Samsung ARM Chromebook is still the best-selling laptop at Amazon in the US, and has been for 8 months now!

It's only just been knocked off the top spot in the UK as well, possibly due to stock issues (there are only external suppliers at present).

Graham

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

I still miss MS-DOS. There was so many things that I could do with it that takes much more work with Windows.

You are suffering needlessly. DOSBox, if you will excuse the cliche, is a better DOS than DOS. It includes sound card emulation and support for classic video configurations with modern video cards. Enjoy!

http://www.dosbox.com/

I didn't really want to jump on this thread. Where I stand is common knowledge...

1) Only the shape of computing is changing -- the Surface is a small computer.
2) Windows is fine. Eight is great! (sorry)

This morning, I am building a Vista machine. Vista is the most versatile version of Windows ever and runs on modest hardware while supporting modern hardware. I thought you might find my use cases interesting.

1) Media server: I have Rokus in my home and stream media to them from a Plex server. My primary source of programming is OTA and I have a HDHR3 on the network to capture files for my whole house DVR. WMC is ideal for this because it's free and includes a free program guide. WMC also looks nice on a television and supports remote controls. I could go Linux, but that would be harder and there is no Linux version of Playon.

2) Virtualization: I do some work with XP computers and my VPCs stopped working with Windows 8.

3) MovieMaker: The version that came with Vista is the best version of MM.

This machine will run XBMC or nPVR or Plex and output to the television in my bedroom while serving files and streams and encoding videos in the background. It will also be connected to a keyboard, mouse, and monitor on my desk for use as a computer.

You may think this is unusual and not typical, but a company called Sookbox is betting you are wrong. They are trying to do about half of this with a new product...

http://sookbox.com/

Anecdotally, both my kids want new desktops and my wife is thinking about abandoning Windows altogether for a 10" fire with a keyboard. A friend has asked me to help choose a desktop replacement laptop. Some people will always need/want computers. Others only used one because there were no alternatives. Now there are lots of alternatives and that is great. Pundits and Pontificaters manipulate data to support their positions, but the personal computer is here for the foreseeable future.

So is Microsoft.

[cortman]

Originally Posted by kacir

You could run just a small handful of carefully selected programs and have all the computer resources for yourself. With the newer operating systems you have obscene numbers of things running that you can't do anything about [without lots of work].

^ This is why you should run Linux.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by cortman

^ This is why you should run Linux.

There are lots of reasons to NOT run Linux.

One of them is the fact that there are many programs for which there is no decent Linux alternative available. There is a lot of hardware that does not fully work under Linux.

Many people who think that Linux is the holy grail, go the wrong way about computing. They do this:

"I am going to run Linux."
"I want to do A, B and C, and X, Y and Z."
"What programs on Linux are available to do that?"
"What hardware do I need, that runs on Linux?"
"Hm... okay... so I need to use an open source driver that only supports SOME functions of my hardware... and I need to run a Windows program using WINE, which will cause a few functions not to work."
"No matter, I'm still running Linux, and that's the only thing that counts. I'll make do."

You should be doing this:

"I want to do A, B and C, and X, Y and Z."
"What hardware do I need?"
"What programs are the best ones?"
"Which operating system can run BOTH the hardware AND the programs, without having to *** around to get it to run?"

In my case, I'll give you an example.

"I want to play chess against my computer on a real board."
"I need a DGT USB chessboard."
"The best user interface is the one from Chessbase."
"The board is only officially supported on Windows."
"Chessbase is a Windows program."

Therefore, I will run Windows. Yes, there are workarounds to get the DGT board running on Linux or the Mac, and there are non-Chessbase chess products, but most of them are inconvenient, incomplete, or unsupported options.

A friend of mine is a guy who does a lot of stuff with media.

"I want to compose music and edit images."
"I need a Midi Keyboard."
"At work, we use Logic for music, and Photoshop for images, so I'll use them at home too."
"The MIDI-keyboard will run in Windows, Mac, and Linux."
"Photoshop will run on Windows and Mac."
"Logic runs only on the Mac."

Thus, he will use a Mac.

There can also be reasons to run Linux, such as wanting to mimic a hosting service's setup for local development of websites, or to write an open source program that will run primairily on Linux, with Windows and Mac being second choices. (One of those programs is The Gimp, or RAWTherapee, for example.)

Know what you want to do. Choose your hardware and software. THEN choose your operating system. Doing it the other way around causes you problems. If you need multiple operating systems to do your task, then you can use multiple computers, or virtual machines (if possible).

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There are lots of reasons to NOT run Linux.

Linux has been brimming with potential since I was a young man. Still brimming with potential. During the time Linux has been brimming with potential, Microsoft has made billions SELLING Windows.

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Linux has been brimming with potential since I was a young man. Still brimming with potential. During the time Linux has been brimming with potential, Microsoft has made billions SELLING Windows.

And Redhat has made billions SELLING Linux.

And embedded systems manufacturers have made billions and billions and billions and billions and billions selling systems running Linux.

There are almost certainly far more Linux systems in the world than Windows. Windows has only ever been a major player on the desktop, which is now a declining market.

[Katsunami]

RedHat doesn't sell Linux. They sell support for their own distribution.

I think you must have missed the loads of Windows servers in many companies. Linux is primarily used in the very smallest computers (embedded systems) and in the very biggest (supercomputers), by reason of its adaptability and customization.

For everything in between except webservers, many companies choose Windows, for desktops and servers.

Linux is a prime choice for use in systems in which the user never or rarely uses the OS directly. The mentioned embedded systems and supercomputers mostly fall into this category, as do things such as phones (Android), and settop boxes and mediaplayers.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Know what you want to do. Choose your hardware and software. THEN choose your operating system. Doing it the other way around causes you problems. If you need multiple operating systems to do your task, then you can use multiple computers, or virtual machines (if possible).

I think that most Linux users are beyond the mantra that Linux is for everyone, but there are a lot of situations where Linux is just as good as Windows. In those cases, choosing the operating system first may be appropriate.

Let's face it: you can get good software in many categories for Linux. LibreOffice may not be Microsoft Office, but it certainly performs the task beyond many people's capabilities. The same can be said for graphics design. It may not be professional grade, but the tools still perform the task beyond the capabilities of most users. Of course, Linux is also on par with Windows for many software categories. That ranges from general use (e.g. web browsers) to specialized applications (e.g. software development).

Choosing the OS first in those cases may make sense for some users. If cost is a constraint, you don't have to worry about buying a license for Linux or most of the software that runs under Linux. Put another way, you don't feel compelled to buy Photoshop (or even Photoshop Elements) just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Microsoft Office just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Visual Studio just because of its branding. License restrictions are also another thing that you don't have to fret over. You can legally run Linux, LibreOffice, GIMP, Eclipse, etc. on every computer that you own. You can also do so without a second thought. You also don't have to be concerned with the restrictions placed on the use of cheaper home editions of software, such as Microsoft Office or Visual Studio Express.

Now I'm not saying that choosing the OS first is appropriate for all users. If you're doing something specialized, it's a bad way to go. If you're doing something that is well supported on all platforms though, it may be a better starting point. I'm also not suggesting that choosing Linux is the aforegone conclusion of choosing an OS first. You may choose Windows because it makes hardware selection easier, and supports popular FLOSS anyhow. You may choose OS X because it supports popular commercial software and provides a competent Unix environment.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

RedHat doesn't sell Linux. They sell support for their own distribution.

Actually, they kinda do both. If I recall correctly, the distribution of RHEL is restricted based upon proprietary components (mostly trademarked materials and such). So if you want to use RHEL, you have to pay up or wait for the release of something like Centos.