Slashdot Mirror
Laptops Outsell Desktops in Retail Stores
TechnoPope writes "According to this article on MSNBC.Com, laptop computers accounted for 54 percent of of 500 Million in retail computer sales last year. Also mentioned was that LCD's outsold CRT's in retail as well. "
Not included in the article is discussion of the fact that, per unit, more desktops/CRTs are sold than laptops/LCDs because of the costs. When people buy more laptops/LCDs despite the price, then I'll be impressed.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Now that LCD monitors are getting more and more affordable, of course the better technology will sell over the lesser. As far as laptops over desktops, I believe large corporations account for the majority of computer purchases and from what I have seen in my own company, everyone gets a laptop and a docking station (to simulate a desktop).
weren't computer sales down 6 months ago?
corporations don't have the money to upgrade anymore, that's a big bulk of a downcline in desktop sales...
and, universities would rather use laptops rather than desktops becuase of space and power requirements.
Runnin' On Empty
I read this yesterday and thought "whoah! More laptops than desktops!" but after reading the article I became aware that the money brought in from laptop sales was more than the money brought in from desktops. Considering the average laptop costs twice as much as the average desktop, you've still got roughly a 2-1 ratio of desktop units sold over laptops.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Is this a sign that 'joe user' starting to realize that software is no longer requiring upgrades every 6 months? (ease of Desktop ugrade is no longer a driving factor)...
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Bearing in mind that desktops are cheaper, and that you can upgrade them more easily using off the shelf components, this doesn't mean that all of a sudden the world+dog are switching to laptops, especially not first time computer buyers looking for a family pc.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
As far as I've seen Desktop buyers almost routinely build their own. Even non-'IT professionals' are building them. I don't know many people building laptops for fun.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
... since almost all laptops are guaranteed to be running some form of Windows. I'll buy one when they ship it to me with FreeBSD installed.
Dude, relax. You're being very un-Dude.
I haven't seen an LCD yet that was really good for certain types of games, like driving games and shooters. For work, yeah, I'd rather have an LCD. For games...unless there's something out there that won't ghost at all, I'll stick with the CRT.
I read this as "Higher number of laptops than desktops".
As laptops generally cost a lot more, it's not that surprising. I also think that laptops are most popular among business / professional users (who can afford the higher price for increased convenience), while the vast majority of home users have desktops as their primary
Could something similar be the case with the LCD's?
Pardon my English...
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Find me a single artist who uses a flat panel display.
Find me an LCD for under $150.
Well, not too amazing. We've run into some issues with the people at my company. One of our receptionists for example: She acquired a LCD monitor to fit on the new receptionist desk that was purchased for her. The reasononing behind the LCD purchase was due to space reasons. ie. there wasn't enough room on the desk for a CRT. In any case, we put the display in, and within minutes she was complaining because she couldn't read it. The standard, nice and crisp, 1024x768 resolution on the monitor was too small for her to read. Our solution. Bump the resolution back to 800x600. On an LCD display this creates problems as the letters get all blocky, and it becomes rather difficult to read. The thing is, since the display looked like crap at 800x600, she complained about it more than being unable to read it. In the end, we had no choice but to leave it at 800x600 so she could at least see the words. I think that's one of the major reasons people stick with CRT's. Despite the resolution on a CRT, all the text is nice and clear.
This is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
I bought a CRT about 9 months ago, but even by today's standards of LCDs, that "slight increase in price" would be about $700. Taday's lowest price of a LCD that does 1600x1200 res: about $950 off pricewatch. My monitor when I bought it: $225. This is not just a "slight difference".
That's hardly surprising. How often do you think people replace a stolen desktop?
Two words: digital photography. An LCD simply can't match the true color representation a good CRT can give, which is essential if you're going to do any serious photo work on a PC.
It's not surprising when you think about how much the price gap between laptops and comparably equipped desktops (with a 15"-17" monitor) cost.
As a recent p-4 2.4ghz with 15" screen laptop only runs about $1100, a comparable desktop (retail) runs close to $1000, why not get it in a portable package?
( OK, a hardcore gamer who wants to swap in a $400 graphics card would not want this... But somtimes you just need to use a machine to accomplish work, learn, communicate, etc. honest...)
Kremvax
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
Now I'm no photographer but I can't see any difference in colour between my samsung 17" LCD and any good CRT. I suspect you need to look at some newer LCDs instead of older passive matrix ones.
the US military? How many of these were rack-mounting in army jeeps?
Just a thought. I try not to have too many of them.
.sig
Yeah, LCDs outsold CRTs, but how many of the LCD owners are unsatisfied with their slower responding pixels and limited viewing angle?
Every day where I work, users are saying they want an LCD monitor for their workstation. Of course, we have no money in the budget for that, so I have to tell them 'no', but they don't know that the LCDs have downfalls. They just think that they are 'Cool'.
I have never understood the idea that laptops are more comfortable than desktops. My forearms are resting on my chair's armrests, my 21" monitor is at eye level. Try that with a laptop (sans docking station).
Best Windows Freeware
Still desktops generally have faster HDD speeds. I've seen a notebook with a 5400rpm drive, but it's still slower than desktop drives. On the subject of heat, I worked for a large computer manufacturer and we were stricly enjoined from calling them "laptops" for that very reason! They are mobile computers or notebook computers.
they compare laptops vs. desktops by looking at sales, not units sold. where i work we buy machines every week, and while we buy 2 times more desktops than laptops, the totals are the same. i think that's because laptops have a longer lifespan. ppl say: i'm going to throw out that extra 500$ for that up-to-date model since it will be harder for me to upgrade later. same thing for CRT vs LCD, we bought a 19' lcd for trade shows and we could have bought a shitload of 19' crt for that price.
desktops still rule the market
But if you look at the statement, they only say that laptops accounted for 54% of $ of retail sales. Given that laptops are generally more expensive, desktops still outsold laptops in numbers. Add to that the average guy can build his own desktop, which is not counted in these numbers, but cannot build his own laptop or notebook, and the actual number of desktops as well as dollars spent on desktops far exceeded laptops.
So they can twist sales numbers to say what they want, even if it isn't accurate. What else is new? And who really cares?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"Two words: digital photography. An LCD simply can't match the true color representation a good CRT can give, which is essential if you're going to do any serious photo work on a PC. "
I do 'serious' photo and texture work on my laptop. It reproduces color quite well.
An LCD can do it. However, it would only be fair to remind you that I paid extra to get a really good display. If you buy a crap LCD (or a crap CRT) the color's going to suck.
I'm not attacking the details so much as I'm attacking the generalization.
"Derp de derp."
Just wait 5 years.
I'll still be using the desktop machines I've got - doing incremental upgrades, of course - but it'll basically be the same boxen.
By then your laptop will be gone. Even if you don't step on it, drop it, run over it with a car, or get it stolen, it'll die from overheat or one of the internal components will break and be irreparable because everything's integrated (with the possible exception of the harddrive).
And then you'll have to buy another one.
Laptops may eventually replace desktops in per-unit usage simply because the laptop owners have to keep buying new ones, while the desktop owners don't. Kind of like how industrial laser printer sales are far fewer than inkjet printer sales.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The Sony Picturebook is the only true laptop I've come across. It's a great little machine. The battery power lasts at least 12 hours (quad battery) and it generates *no* significant heat. Being in a wheelchair, I'm always critical of the term for exactly the reason you mentioned. Most of the laptops sold today might not be safe on a wooden table, like alone your lap.
Laws are for people with no friends.
>>The desktop is king only where unit cost is important.
Exactly, this means that more desktops were sold, a lot more, but since laptops cost probably at least 50% more than desktops, the dollar amount becomes higher than desktops. Same goes for the CRT screens (to a lesser extent).
You also figure that people buy new laptops more often than desktops (since you can just swap out components from desktops), and the effect is even greater.
Sure, laptops and LCD are becoming more and more popular, but desktops and CRT will be king for a few more years yet. desktops are generally faster, cheaper, better for games, and *gasp* more ergomically correct (I'll never figure out that laptop keyboard, and hunching over a laptop will never apeal to me). They're hotter and non-portable in general, but that's a choice for each person to make.
I bet laptops will continue to gain market share over desktops. For most people a good laptop has more than enough power to use office apps, Internet and maybe the odd game. And that's all most people need to do with their computers.
Now that you don't have to sacrifice power and performance for portability in any significant way, why would you bother buying a desktop other than cost? So I think a lot of people are thinking that getting a desktop that they can only use in one location is a major drawback.
Personally, I've been drooling over the new Apple G5s, but I really think my next computer will be another Powerbook. I take my TiBook everywhere with me, and with WIFI at home and work, I can use it all day. If I buy a desktop for home, I won't get to use it for most of my day.
Real estate is more expensive than
computers. And getting more expensive.
Computers get less expensive, at least
expressed as computing power and features
for a given amount of dollars.
Businesses want cubicles to stay small
(or get smaller) and people with home offices
want to make maximum use of that space.
It makes perfect sense on that basis.
However, I think there a lot of downsides
to laptops that overzealous desktop replacers don't see, including proprietary components,
vulnerability to physical damage and theft,
and relative difficulty of backing up whole
hard drives.
Does anyone else think that laptops could be gaining ground simply because of the overall convenience of having a small computer with a built-in screen that can be carried around? Aside from hard-core gamers, not too many consumers have a need for a desktop and a large screen. It also saves one from having a big ugly desktop and monitor sitting around, which is nice from a aesthetics perspective, especially in apartments.
Ah, but radiologists aren't as concerned with absolute color correction as they are with resolution I would bet... the top resolution monitors are LCDs. Artists however are more concerned with the color than ultra-high resolution.
A 17" LCD is a lot bigger than a 17" CRT. With LCDs, the inches refer to the size of the screen, all of which is viewable. With CRTs, the inches refer to the size of the screen--some of which is covered by the casing and made unusable by the fact that the tube curves at the very edges. Combine that with the fact that LCDs are sharper, so that 1600x1200 is actually readable on a 17" screen, and brighter, and don't flicker--basically, look for a CRT that matches the quality of a 17" LCD and you're looking for a 19" CRT designed for very demanding users.
None of this changes the fact that people who simply want a cheap monitor and not a good one will buy a CRT, but then, the differences between Macs and Wintels don't cause people to shell out the cash for a Mac, either.
Now I'll be modded down by Wintel advocates for indicating that Macs are better, and by Mac zealots for indicating that Macs are more expensive. While I do believe that Macs are better, let me qualify both implications by saying that they're perceived that way on both counts, and if you accept at least hypothetically that common wisdom is correct, the analogy stands.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.