but now PCs aren't big
From my desk I see about about 10 PCs without rotating my head, with an average of about 1.9 PCs per desk. Also about 1 smartphone per desk
Can't see any slabs they must all be behind me.
Microsoft’s chief salesman Kevin Turner has tried to turn his company’s crushing lateness on devices into a positive for the sake of partners and employees. Speaking at the company’s annual partner conference, chief operating officer Turner cast mighty Microsoft as the plucky challenger with nowhere to go but grow as the world …
I'll agree with you here. I just bought 6x Toshiba A6 Quad core laptops with touch screen for my son's school, these are running 8.1 and have all the nonsense removed and they are not a smooth experience by any stretch of the imagination, so I hate to think what 8.1 runs like on v.low cost hardware like say a Netbook...
Chromebooks maintain a super low price as the OS is little more than an X window running the Chrome browser and little or no storage - my mother has one and loves it , perfect for her use.
Maybe Microsoft have something up their sleeve .. but I doubt it.
Specs for one of the listed low cost notebooks. ( ES-1 )
Windows 8.1 - 64-bit - Intel® Celeron® N2830 processor (2.16GHz/2.41GHz w/ Intel® Burst) - 4GB DDR3L memory - 500GB hard drive - 15.6" HD widescreen CineCrystal™ display (1366 x 768) - Intel® HD graphics - stereo speakers - HD audio - webcam - multi-gesture touchpad - Wireless - Bluetooth® 4.0 - HDMI® - USB 3.0 - card reader - 3-cell battery - 1-year limited warranty. Color: Diamond Black
Having Windows 8.1 on a previous generation Atom tablet (Clovertrail) running at 1.6Ghz, with 64GB storage and 2GB RAM, I have to say it runs very nicely.
That said, I don't have any of the crudware that Toshiba normally pre-installs and cripples even high end hardware.
It certainly runs MS Office very smoothly. It is certainly more efficient than Windows 7 on low-end hardware. The tablet boots to the desktop faster than my Core i5 desktop at work, which has Windows 7 Pro on it.
Netbooks were/are amazingly awesome. Until Microsoft got/get their hands on them, that is.
It was only the ones with XP that sold in any volume but the concept was really hampered by the restrictions that Intel placed on them, limiting screen size, etc.
Just for comparison, the Apollo 11 guidance computer (A11GC) that took Armstrong et al to the Moon back in 1969 ran at 1.024MHz internally, half that externally. That's MEGAHertz, not the GigaHertz we're talking about with these netbooks. A11GC had 4 16-bit general-purpose registers, the Core i7 has 16 registers in 64-bit mode. A11GC had 2KB of RAM; the average netbook will have about 1,048,576 times as much. Mass storage on the A11GC was 32KB - again, about 1,048,576 times less than what you'll be getting in a small netbook.
I guess "underpowered" is a relative term...Or is everyone apart from me doing stuff several orders of magnitude more difficult than putting a man on the moon?
> the Apollo 11 guidance computer (A11GC)
> ran at 1.024MHz internally, half that externally
It also only did one thing, and almost didn't do that given that they had to restart it a few times during the landing run.
The i7-860 I'm using is running 48 background processes with less than 1% CPU use. Times change, as do usage models.
I've not had any problems at all with Windows 8, even on low powered machines, but I know I'm one of those rare cases who actually likes those tiles'n'all.
These low powered machines sound like a good backup plan. One of the reasons I moved away from my Mac was the worry that if it broke beyond repair then I would have a helluva lot of money to spend for even a simple means of accessing my data in a meaningful way. To have the option of a low cost solution is a nice safety net, even if for a short term.
As for Chromebooks, I admit that I don't get (or 'grok') them at all. I don't see them as powerful or even versatile enough to be of any use without an internet connection and that is a very big deal for me. But, the fact that so many people are buying them tells me that the issue must be mine and not theirs (unlike Beverley 'phoar' Crusher who once said "If there's nothing wrong with my mind there must be something wrong with the universe").
It's one thing to use the cloud, but it seems to me that to depend on the cloud for day-to-day operations is opening up too many process weaknesses.
This is in fact one of my biggest complaints about my Chromebook (C720).
You create a Google Document. Where's the backup? If you are syncing locally using the Drive software then you're covered, right?
No. Check the local file copy and you'll find your Google Document is a tiny file containing a URL to the online one. NO BACKUP.
Couple that with the fact that natively you cannot create a plain text file in the web UI (WTF Google?) and basically they are pushing you into their own file formats accessible only by their own tools. The very thing they complain Microsoft do with Office formats.
Microsoft have their faults, and their file formats are far from great, but they don't reach the level of Google evil inherent in this attempted lock-in.
I don't think you're right about that. In the last month Chromebooks (and Drive on Chrome) allows offline working, including new document creation. And it will work with MS native formats - so you can store locally if you want.
https://support.google.com/drive/answer/1628514?hl=en&ref_topic=1628465
You can create offline backups of your documents - real offline backups to view and edit on Chromebook. These work regardless of having an internet connection.
Text editing is available from a number of addons or directly in Chrome create a link to or paste into the URL box in Chrome: data:text/html, <html contenteditable> and you have a notepad.
Open docs.google.com
Create new document, add some random text
File -> Email as attachment
Set filetype to plain text
There, you just created a plain text version using the Google Docs web interface.
As for the backup being with Google, rather than on my computer, I'm pretty confident that Google have better backup processes in place than I'll ever manage at home. They've previously shown that even gmail gets backed up to tape.
I'm pretty confident that Google have better backup processes in place than I'll ever manage at home.
I don't disagree, but it's still (from my end user perspective) a single point of failure. We all know how bad an idea it is to only have one backup, surely?
However it's not just being reliant on someone else's backup processes that concerns me. If I'm reliant on cloud services, then I'm reliant on broadband access to get to my data. Until the day comes that broadband is ubiquitous everywhere (and even here in a developed part of the world that is far from being the case) that's just not practical.
Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with using cloud services, but they are just an additional backup, and a convenience.
I back up my documents as ODF, of course. It's a non-proprietary format, unlike Office formats, and fully supported by Docs. I also use InSync Pro to replicate Drive files to my Ubuntu workstation, and rsync to create snapshots for offline backup under my personal control, so I'm not dependent on the Google or MS cloud.
I added a free text editor from Play to my Chromebook. Like Docs, and in fact most of my tools and games, it works just fine offline.
If you want more than Chrome offers, though, load Crouton, an Ubuntu distribution tailored for Chromebooks - even if you have an ARM Chromebook (unlike MS ARM devices, Google always provides a simple keystroke to unlock the bootloader). It runs simultaneous to Chrome (no disk-boot or VM - same kernel) and is light enough for low-end hardware. Unity works well with touch on my C720P, too.
So I guess I miss completely any mechanisms at all by which Googly is seeking anything resembling Microsoft's epic levels of lock-in. Have you ever used a Chromebook?
It's one thing to use the cloud, but it seems to me that to depend on the cloud for day-to-day operations is opening up too many process weaknesses.
You know this. I know this. Pretty much everyone else reading this story understands this. But, and I've said this before, Joe & Jane public have been sold a lie - that "the cloud" is some sort of panacea that is always available, always there, 100% reliable.
Whereas we all know that "the cloud" is nothing much more than a bunch of server farms, some (occasionally pretty good, admittedly) management software and a shiny UI for the end user, the average non-techie user has swallowed, hook line and sinker, the marketing bullshit that they can rely on the magic cloud, and never need think about looking after their data again.
> was the worry that if it broke beyond repair then I would have a helluva lot of money to spend for even a simple means of accessing my data in a meaningful way.
Presumably you weren't using any Mac only programs (because you would have the same problem migrating.)
So the problem would be disk format. The Mac can use FAT and NTFS media (some versions need an add-on to be able to write to NTFS). So Backing up to an external drive would be no issue and be accessible.
Unless you were using Time machine. In that case, if your Mac failed you would need to restore to a working Mac. However, the likely failure is either the harddrive or something else (i.e. not the hard drive *and* something else). So if it is the HD, you just replace it and restore, if it isn't you remove the HD and put it in a USB enclosure and access it via Linux.
The problem seems very artificial.
@Jess
"However, the likely failure is either the harddrive or something else" -- Yesssssssssssssss
Anyway, artificial? Let's see if I can put this in terms you'll understand;
I had one MacBook and my fear was that if this one MacBook broke beyond repair, in order to do my computery things, I would have to pay a premium to buy a new one (and your solution of having a separate Linux machine as a standby sounds like a desperate argument to prove I'm an Apple hater). With me so far? Right? I just didn't want to be without a computer that I could use.
So, because I didn't want to have to fork out a lot of money for a new Apple computer, I decided not to rely on one any more.
Don't take it personally just because someone said they didn't stay with a Mac. It's not an insult against you, actually it wasn't even an insult against your computer. If anything, it was an insult against me because I don't have a job where I can afford to poop MacBooks from out of my bottom.
There, are we Ok now?
Good.
Six to ten years ago I was buying basic desktops for about £200 (no monitor). Now they are up to at least £300? Often more than a basic laptop. Yet here we have £150 laptops. So where is my basic £150 desktop? They are not selling cheap windows desktops because everyone has abandoned competing in the market and dell bankrupted all the small producers.
These ultra-cheap (read heavily subsidised) Windows products are going to place still greater pressure on Microsoft's bread and butter customers - the thousands, probably millons of small, specialist computer shops around the world. Microsoft charge small OEMs $US 100 per copy of Windows. No exceptions, take it or leave it. The price has not changed in 20 years - which means that in real terms, it has gone up and up and up. In 1995, a bog-standard new computer was around $AU 2500, a half-decent laptop half as much again. You paid $499 for application software that is $20 now, or free. Windows, in other words, was around 3% to 5% of the cost of a computer. Today, that same typical standard computer costs around $AU 900, Windows is $AU 120 of that. It comes with a 2TB hard drive, 8GB RAM, DVDRW, dual core CPU, 23 inch TFT screen .... features you couldn't even dream about 20 years ago. Today, Windows accounts for between 10% and 15% of the system cost, more than that for the smallest budget systems.
But Microsoft give the same product away to the gigantic multinational companies sending the smaller concerns out of business. Before too long, there won't be any small OEMs left, there won't be any shops giving Microsoft those massive profits, and MS will be in deep, deep shite. They are killing the industry, and when it's dead, they will die too.
" Before too long, there won't be any small OEMs left, there won't be any shops giving Microsoft those massive profits, and MS will be in deep, deep shite."
The certified MS-dependent PC builders will be in big trouble. Same goes for the associated certified MS-dependent support+services outfits.
Maybe, just maybe, those smaller PC builders should start selling Linux-ready systems and if necessary working with other people, maybe with local Linux experts, who are willing to offer Linux support at sensible prices?
If it's that or go out of business...
It's OK, they'll go out of business. And it's not only the small PC builders. Toshiba chose to slide slowly into irrelevance with their Windows laptops instead of trying some alternate OS when it was still possible. Heck, they had nothing left to loose. Now all these big PC OEMs are in for a terrible surprise, Microsoft is cutting the ropes and will leave their rafts floating freely behind. Oh and to rub salt into their wounds, secure boot makes sure no OEM will be able to even try moving away from Windows.
As far as i have understood chromebooks are occupying less than 25% of the sub $300 device market inside of the united states, even less in other countries (including mine). No idea where you people live but over the pc is still the standard for any kind of "pc work", i even see more laptops running ubuntu that chromebooks.
From where i see this might more be a hit against the ipad and less against the chromebook, as the latter hasn't really reached anything.
Are my numbers really off and there some chromebooks armies out there ?
are wildly understated by Microsoft.
Everytime our IT people have provided laptops, they have been worefully underspecified in the memory department. Two gigs of ram is only enough to reliably run a video card, certainly this hamstings any "windows experience", let alone any productivity.
Four gigs of ram, a seperate GPU and a 3.4 Ghz quadcore is the absolute minimum I will accept any longer on something I have to do work on. Time is money! (and I'm not wasting it due to crappy computers any longer)
BTW, to anyone suggesting a change to *nix, it isn't supported by our IT department or our systems and software.
"to anyone suggesting a change to *nix, it isn't supported by our IT department or our systems and software."
Then someone needs to point your IT director or his/her boss at MS's recent strategic pronouncements vs where your company thinks it wants to be.
"The cloud" is the answer to everything according to MS (apart from gaming and Windows Embedded and...), and if your application suite or organisation security policy isn't cloud-compatible, your organisation will not be Microsoft compatible for much longer.
Better start planning sooner rather than later.
Hey cowardly AC, Then Windows 7 and Office 2010 is it, we DON"T NEED MORE. The IT department won't use the cloud at all and I won't back any move to the cloud because of it's lack of uptime and it's insecure reliance on the internet and we won't be going to *nix except for preconfigured servers possibly.
Time is money and "the cloud" is just flammable vapor that will burn anyone who relies on it.
Either you know and are able to update, his companies systems/software to run on "nix, or are offering to re-write it all. How nice.
Not a cloud fan myself, never have been, and run a mix of Windows/*nix systems/servers myself, but you regardless of Microsoft' *announcements* (no "pro" required), not every company can switch (nor does every company want to)
"Either you know and are able to update, his companies systems/software to run on "nix, or are offering to re-write it all"
What a strange assumption.
I suggested starting planning sooner rather than later. An early part of that planning process would be to find out how many significant applications couldn't readily be replaced by *x variants, and whether there would be any applicable mitigation strategies (there usually are, the costs and (in)convenience are what varies and what matters).
An organisation (and in particular, an organisation's IT Department) that doesn't have at least a cursory view of this information is increasingly likely heading for trouble before too long.
"not every company can switch (nor does every company want to)"
OK, but an organisation (not just a company) will benefit from knowing something about what options it has on the 12 month and three year (maybe longer) timescale, and what their costs, benefits, and risks might be. An organisation will not benefit from sticking its head in the sand and assuming nothing will change much. I presume you're not suggesting sticking heads in the sand?
Great, more cheap hardware to join the botnet swarms, infest with malware and suffer the usual hard disk corruptions. Or I could just get a Chromebook which works simply and beautifully out of the box. Remember how sh*te Netbooks were and what a miss MS Surfaces were ? Microsoft should have adopted a Unix kernel a decade ago, like Apple did, and then they might now be able to offer a computing platform that is reasonably secure and people actually want rather than are forced to use for legacy app support.