The PC should have been dead by now, but it's still alive and kicking

[Wizwill]

My ideal office set up would be a cutting-edge desktop with an aggressively-sized M2 "C" Drive (less data equals faster operation) backed by an appropriately-sized internal active-data drive with a large internal raid array or an external NAS box for legacy data. I also would would like to have dual gigabit Ethernet capability and both 2.4 and 5,0 Gb wireless connectivity for Internet and portable device communication. This infrastructure also allows you to take care of most basic security requirements unless you feel compelled to create a Faraday shield around your network environment.

As I have mentioned before, I am not a gamer so I don't need a fat pipe from multiple video cards to power a massive wall of high FPS 8K monitors. I would like to have a video card with enough grunt to power at least 2 decent sized 4K monitors with good color gamma and high enough refresh rates so that normal online video looks okay. It would also be nice to have a port for a 3rd vertical monitor for formatting text. One other necessity is that this has to be a Windows machine because Nuance professional speech recognition requires a Windows environment. Of course, Windows 10 possesses its own built-in security concerns.

None of this stuff can be done on a tablet nor is it easy to do on a laptop and it's even getting hard to do securely on a PC. Most current main boards are only available with built-in Ethernet, wireless and sound capabilities which are difficult to defeat securely without mainboard jumpers, which are no longer supplied. I personally don't really believe that Microsoft (or whomever) isn't listening in even if you told it not to. I'd prefer to keep my client lists, tax information, other financials and, especially, my intellectual property to myself.

 

[wiyosaya]

they make color accurate laptops but holy pricy! I would definitely use a desktop too

True color accuracy in a computer is not necessarily easy, and I suspect that any color accurate computer being sold is the result of an over-zealous marketing department.

For a photographer, you would have to calibrate each camera by shooting a known reference, then calibrate the monitor to that. If you want to print, then you need to also calibrate the printer. Off-the-shelf, I do not see it as happening. Maybe @captaincranky will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Soulburn74]

Just purely speaking from an enterprise IT employee standpoint. I'm thankful that the PC (at least server side) is still in existence, as I love my job! (even though its completely different than it was even 10 years ago (VM's, hyper-convergeance, Cloud....... its a new world every few years it seems.......but it sure beats"would you like fries with that!" which I always guess (satirically) would be the next alternative as its the only career I've ever had).

 

[0dium]

The successor must be better in almost every way to replace something. If its just different then it's a matter of preference.

 

[raddude9]

One big thing the PC naysayers missed, is how the longevity of PC's increased dramatically in the 2010's. Back in the 1990's and 2000's, PC's became obsolete in the space of 3-4 years so people and businesses would have to replace their old machines quite quickly. With Moore's law starting to slow down in the late 2000's people began to upgrade their PC's at a much lower rate. So yes, the sales of PC's did slow down but to interpret this as the PC dying was an overly simplified understanding of what was really going on.

 

[captaincranky]

True color accuracy in a computer is not necessarily easy, and I suspect that any color accurate computer being sold is the result of an over-zealous marketing department.

Pre-built computers sold as a package (desktop & monitor), are ostensibly delivered with a "color profile", to again ostensibly, link up with whichever connected printer, and reproduce accurately the colors displayed on the screen. That's not entirely possibly, since modern monitors have a much wider gamut in color and density than do printing papers. But for most purposes it's close enough, or as good as you should expect.

For a photographer, you would have to calibrate each camera by shooting a known reference, then calibrate the monitor to that. If you want to print, then you need to also calibrate the printer. Off-the-shelf, I do not see it as happening. Maybe @captaincranky will correct me if I am wrong.

The princple correction for the camera is "white balance", which refers directly back to the color temperature of the light the image was captured in. We lazy pseudo pros, generally set the white balance to "auto" and blast away.

Including a white card, an 18% gray card, along with a density step wedge and color panel in the first shot, would enable the editor to recreate the scene's characteristics almost verbatim.

However, if you're going too blue in the shade, you can merely dial back the blue channel a bit in Photoshop, with a "no harm, no foul" result

Monitor calibration is critical in having what appears on my monitor, to coincide with what appears on your, (ostensibly) correctly calibrated monitor, with identical source images.

Now, monitors have a nasty habit of changing color (or calibration, if you prefer), over their lifespans. The old CRT monitors were particularly nasty at burning up the 3 color guns at different rates, hence the need for frequent calibration.

Modern CCFL and LED monitors fare better in this respect, but you have to keep in mind, that makers rate "lifespan", in hours, to the point of 1/2 original brightness. That doesn't rule out the possibility of non linear color degradation whatsoever.

As for viewing prints, every light source will render the same print to appear differently. Hence, a known color temperature lamp must be used to view the color corrections which might be necessary on said prints.

At the end of the day though, how red or orange a model's face might appear in a sunset shot, is up to the personal taste of the editor, for better or worse.

 

[poohbear]

I don't think our generation will ever do away with the laptop, and the desktop PC is simply more ergonomically friendly (can't work for hours on a laptop and forget about tablets/smartphones). Laptops have come a loooong way with the 4/6-core thin and light laptops and even those OLED 17" gaming ones. With an ergonomically friendly laptop stand, there really is no need for a desktop for the average user. For long hours of gaming, professional work, or office work etc, then yes a desktop is definitely more convenient, but not entirely necessary.

For me as a teacher & small business owner, my desktop at home is my entertainment centre and for long hours of lesson planning, grading, or work simply because I love the ergonomics of it (it minimizes neck and shoulder pain). My laptop is for work on the go, and my smartphone is for quick edits or quick responses in email. Can I do away with my desktop? Absolutely, and I really think this is a generational thing, cause my nephew/nieces could care less for one.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Laptops wont fully replace desktops either for power users and gamers. Many gamers want bigger screens. And power users want larger and multiple screens. You can use a laptop to do that, but its not ideal. Also laptops still are not as fast as desktop variants and probably wont ever be from a cooling standpoint.

True, but we're getting close. right now I'm on a laptop connected to 3 monitors (I'm at work ) using a USB mouse and keyboard - it's all hooked into a docking station with 1 USB 3 plugin.
This laptop is more than enough to play simple games like LoL, but you're right, anything with a dedicated GPU needs a desktop I'd think.

Laptops are not nearly as nice as desktops, unless you hook them up to a full-sized keyboard, monitor, mouse...and then only for basic work and light gaming. Laptops are like weak, expensive, portable desktops with very limited upgradeability, and/or repairability. The only reason to have a laptop is portability, so I am surprised they are as popular as they are. Do that many people really need to do work away from home (not at the office), or are lacking the space for a nice desktop?

this is how my entire office works. Cubes/offices have monitors and docking stations. A laptop lets you bring your computer home each night so you can work from home (great for work/life balance). You can bring your PC to meetings and everyone does. When you move desks, there's no computer to move and they're all more than powerful enough for software engineers. The only downside is 2 seconds to plug in a USB port and power adapter when you get back to your desk. We all have 2 chargers, and 1 stays at your desk so you never have to crawl under your desk either.

 

[arrowflash]

One big thing the PC naysayers missed, is how the longevity of PC's increased dramatically in the 2010's. Back in the 1990's and 2000's, PC's became obsolete in the space of 3-4 years so people and businesses would have to replace their old machines quite quickly. With Moore's law starting to slow down in the late 2000's people began to upgrade their PC's at a much lower rate. So yes, the sales of PC's did slow down but to interpret this as the PC dying was an overly simplified understanding of what was really going on.

Exactly. When articles point that PC sales are slowing down they often forget to mention that Moore's Law is pretty much over at this point and even today increments keep slowing down and bringing diminishing returns. Unless they're specifically talking about desktop PCs with tower cases, which of course will probably keep losing ground to laptops.

And actually you're being too generous with 3-4 years, at the height of that era around 1996 - 2003, a 2 year-old PC was already fully obsolete. A gaming or workstation PC would become a toaster if not a potato in the span of 2 years.

 

[BadThad]

PC's will never die. Sure, you can use a phone or tablet to perform certain tasks but when it get's complicated they are a complete fail. What I can do on a phone I can do in far less time on a PC. Something as simple as web browsing works WAY more efficiently on a PC with no scaling issues. There is no good substitute for a keyboard, mouse, and fast CPU/HDD/RAM.

 

[axiomatic13]

PC's are dying claims have always been clickbait. The bulk of the innovation that occurs on PC's is later added to mobile devices. Not the other way around. PC's also have the "tinker factor" that scratches the same itch, for example, as working on cars does. Humans like to tinker. Honestly, the only mobile device I use anymore is my smartphone. I stopped buying tablets. Throw away devices suck.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

PCs are keepers. Screen size & quality, keyboard & mouse for definitive control, component level upgrade, expansion & repair. If I relied on Apple and/or on latest/greatest smarty-pants-phone, I would be spending 2x to 3x more during the full ownership cycle.

Used Dell T3500 w/ 6C/12T costing $245 to date, 2012 dumbphone costing $29.95 & 5 cents per minute, etc.

So I save $2k for my old age.

 

[Prosercunus]

There is just something about my desktop that I can't let go. Not even a laptop takes its place but it's the only thing that comes close.

 

[hel0sn8]

Does anyone remember the PC industry though? Back in the late 90's early 00's you would walk into Best Buy or Circuit City and there would be rows and rows of them for sale. Online you had Dell, Compaq, IBM, HP, and Gateway 2000. As PC sales dried up companies that couldn't adjust went under. IBM and Dell survived, but Gateway 2000 is as gone as floppy disk drive.

People like to predict the future by looking at a current trend and following it forward. But trends don't do that. Trends die and trends change. If an overweight adult was losing 5 pounds/month no one would follow that forward and say "In a few years, they'll be only 75 pounds!!" It's called a 'plateau' - it's when the trend line levels off and goes flat.

Laptops have replaced desktops because there is no longer a downside to the portability. Laptops are now 'fast enough' to do everything you need to at work, and you can take them home and to meetings. But that won't go any farther: tablets will NEVER replace laptops (even with a separate mouse and keyboard) because tablets are built to run on a battery, which is low power. You can't get low power and high performance out of the same package.

An ARM tablet processor designed for battery life will never keep up with an Intel CPU that you can plug into the wall. The gaming and business world still needs the power you get from a laptop. And maybe someday a tablet will have that much power, but by then laptops will be even faster and better and cheaper, so we'll keep using those. There's a big difference between 'decline' in a market and 'death'. Not everything ends up like Kodak film.

Tablets will never replace laptops! That's very short minded and highly likely very untrue. Sorry if I don't believe you can predict the future. I also think you have misinterpreted the correct usage of the word "trend" in this context.

Tablets will undoubtedly replace laptops. A tablet is merely currently an underpowered laptop. And a laptop merely a tablet with an intergrated keyboard. Tech advances - tablets will get better. Chips smaller and batteries better. Wireless power will further develop. ARM are not the only chipset available in tablets. Please "catch up". Intel have been making chipsets for tablets have for a long while now. What you state is very close minded and out of place.

Trend refers to a long time pattern here. Not a fad.

Tablets WILL replace laptops. Its inevitable.