Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jul 2012 22:07 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Gartner has its figures for PC sales. Worldwide, Asus and Lenovo seeing lots of growth, Dell and HP losing lots of sales, Apple doesn't register in the top 5. Overall, the market remained flat. If you take a narrow view of the world and only focus on the US, things look different. In the US, everybody loses, and only Apple sees minor growth. All this excludes tablet sales, but considering people are hammering on and on and on about how it's a post-PC device, I think it makes sense to exclude it. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Then again, who cares.
Thread beginning with comment 526657
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: There is NO "post PC" era
by tanzam75 on Fri 13th Jul 2012 17:20 UTC in reply to "There is NO "post PC" era"
tanzam75
Member since:
2011-05-19

Frankly, dual-core is plenty for most users. I'm surprised your father even managed to get up to 45% utilization. Perhaps he was running a web browser, in which Javascript had hung one tab (100% of one core), and another tab was running Flash (80% of a second core).

And actually, the OEMs still haven't gotten themselves out of the MHz-war mindset. They are still overbuying on CPUs and underbuying on other components. (I suppose that's why Intel is still making boatloads of money.) For example, cutting $20 off the CPU budget for a given configuration would pay for a hybrid hard drive, which would greatly improve the user-perceived performance.

But then, OEMs have always made strange decisions when it came to system configuration. I remember in 2003-2006, it was quite common to find a configuration with: (1) a gigantic hard drive (2) not enough RAM (3) Windows XP Media Center Edition (4) no TV tuner. Why did they preload XP Media Center if the computer didn't have a TV tuner? They should've instead preloaded XP Home and spent the savings on more RAM.

In the Vista/7 timeframe, it was quite common to find OEM-preloaded DVD playback software on systems with Windows Home Premium. This also made no sense, because they were paying the DVD licensing fees twice. The savings from cutting out the duplicate licensing could've paid for the removal of most of the preloaded crapware, which again would have dramatically improved the user experience.

No, I won't be shedding any tears for the OEMs. They dug themselves into their own hole. It's true that they faced a brutally-competitive market, but they made enough boneheaded decisions to destroy their own margins.

Reply Parent Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

In the Vista/7 timeframe, it was quite common to find OEM-preloaded DVD playback software on systems with Windows Home Premium. This also made no sense, because they were paying the DVD licensing fees twice. The savings from cutting out the duplicate licensing could've paid for the removal of most of the preloaded crapware, which again would have dramatically improved the user experience.


Like they also do with WLAN and Bluetooth managers/drivers, even though Windows supports them out of the box since XP days?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It seemed to me that native Wi-Fi support was added to XP through SP1 or SP2, and that even Windows 7 still did not provide native support for basic Bluetooth functionality such as OBEX file transfers. Did I get it wrong ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Like they also do with WLAN and Bluetooth managers/drivers, even though Windows supports them out of the box since XP days?


And battery, and sound card, and video card, and ... Heck, I've even seen systems where the OEM switched all the Media Player and Photo Viewer file associations over to some bundled crapware.

The problem with the OEMs is that they think they can compete based on what they can list on the sticker. All the intangibles get neglected -- and yet these often have a greater effect on the usability of the system than the raw specs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: There is NO "post PC" era
by zima on Thu 19th Jul 2012 23:23 in reply to "RE: There is NO "post PC" era"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And actually, the OEMs still haven't gotten themselves out of the MHz-war mindset. They are still overbuying on CPUs and underbuying on other components. (I suppose that's why Intel is still making boatloads of money.)

Maybe things will come around. Because, it wasn't always like that - consider how Atari 2600 and NES had essentially the same CPU - launched in mid-70s, still in some then-new machines in mid-80s. Similar with Motorola 68k - launch at the turn of 70s/80s, still found in some newly introduced machines in early 90s. Clocks not much different.
PCs also had such period: while 386 was launched in 1985, XT and AT-class machines remained fairly standard for a long time - and AMD 386 (after it was finally cleared by courts...) was still able to be a big success in early 90s.

It was more about support & gfx chips ("GPU"), amount of memory... So just like now, more or less, except without any usage scenario in sight which would significantly bump the need for CPU power, like ~multimedia did in the 90s (that, and the success of "Intel Inside" & bunny suits men campaigns).

Edited 2012-07-19 23:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2