PC Market Still Showing Few Signs of Life (axios.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It was another rough quarter for the global PC market, as fourth quarter unit sales dropped 2%, according to preliminary results from Gartner. In the U.S. things were even bleaker, with sales down 8%. HP was the only big name maker to post a sales increase in the U.S. and globally. It also passed Lenovo to grab the top spot globally and increased its lead in the U.S. over Dell. Apple saw Mac sales globally up 1.4%, but in the U.S. sales were down 1.6%. Dell gained less than 1% globally but fell more than 12% in the U.S.
Lenovo sales dipped slightly globally, but its market share increased slightly, to 22% of the worldwide market.
PCs have mostly hit the 'good enough' point, there is no value in replacing them as frequently as in the past.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Growing up in high school in the late 90s/early 2000s I was one of "those guys" (if you're reading this, likely you were too) with several used PCs living in their bedroom running various hobbyist tasks, sometimes tinkering with linux etc.
Then in the 2010s I was down to a single "vm lab" server and desktop for games, plus a single laptop for travel. As time has gone on, priorities have changed, I use my laptop more and my desktop is somewhere under a heap of old things in a storage unit an hour from my home. The laptop is my primary machine.
With the advent of Thunderbolt 3 you can finally get enough bits across to outsource your GPU to a box on your desk, and Lenovo's selling a "graphics dock" with a midrange GTX 1050 for $400 not much larger than an Apple TV or VHS cassette tape.
My last "new" computer was a 2012 era Thinkpad x230, and I'll probably be upgrading to the x280 pr T480 when it comes out in a month or so, and also a graphics dock. Then when I need to upgrade the graphics, just plug in a new TB3 graphics dock/eGPU. My i5 from 2012 is still plenty fast, the only shortcoming is that it can address a max of 16GB memory and moderately weak graphics (although I did play Skyrim on it over Christmas for 40+ hours without an issue). I also upgraded the drive from magnetic to SSD for maybe $100 and replaced the battery for $50.
If power users can hold on to their laptops for five years, I can only imagine how long the average user keeps their computer these days. Being able to extend the graphics on a laptop indefinitely is going to extend the life of the device quite a bit.
moox. for a new generation.
Those who build "desktop" machines for gaming are in a bad place right now; mining has doubled the price of new GPUs; a GTX 1070 is ~$900+ right now anywhere that actually has them in stock. You can sell a used 970 for more than you paid new. Then you have GPU manufacturers sending a huge chunk of their foundry capacity to big ML cloud operators. The key piece of hardware for Desktop machines, a GPU, has become a costly and difficult to obtain part.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
...and it still works fine
I did upgrade some stuff, like switching to an SSD, but for the stuff I do, performance is fine
The main reason I don't upgrade more often isn't price, it's pain
With restrictive licenses, activation, patches, drivers..etc, it's a MASSIVE PAIN IN THE ASS to upgrade. If I could just pop the hard drive in a new box and have everything adjust itself automagically, I would love to have the latest and greatest, even if I don't really need it
I was planning to upgrade my laptop. But now with the Meltdown and Spectre issues? No thanks - I can wait a couple of years for them to design new chips.
What company doesn't kill off hardware between each major release? MS does it.
Actually for a long time they didn't
E.g. up to 8 Windows would run on pretty much any CPU. It was only with 8 that it started to require "NX bit, SSE2, PAE".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you search you find a lot of people got told their machines couldn't be upgraded from 7 to 8. Having used 7 and 8, I'd say MS was doing them a favour, but it was still something of a departure for MS.
You could install XP, Vista and 7 on an absolutely ancient machine and it would still run, albeit slowly. Only with 8 did they start to kill off support for old hardware.
Up to that point Microsoft was a software company and it was in their interests to sell you a new OS to run on your old hardware and not break any applications.
Apple by contrast sell hardware and give away software. So it's in their interest to make new OS releases not work on old hardware. It's also in their interest to tie new releases of their applications to new OS versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So if you've got a 2012 Macbook Pro which they were still selling up to a year or so ago, it's getting close to the edge. The next oldest machine, the 2010 Macbook Pro, is the oldest Macbook Pro supported.
I.e. I reckon I'm good for maybe one more release past High Sierra before my machine drops out of support. And for XCode that's an issue because you need the latest release to install it. I.e. Apple know for people who buy a machine to run XCode they can force an upgrade by tying XCode to Mac, tying XCode to the OS version and tying the OS to the most recent hardware.
Of course I might just decide to run macOS in a VM...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I'd love to buy new hardware but I WILL NOT buy a PC that runs Windows 10 or similar spyware OS's.
I'm going to stay on Win7 and if Microsoft persists on collecting data on users with their OS, I will migrate to Linux.
Game over unless Microsoft cleans up their act and I suspect they won't.
That's one reason PCs aren't selling.