This conversation seems analogous to “Stand Alone Cameras are dead because Phones”. Yes, I concede cell phones take nice pictures now. I still prefer my dedicated camera to take pictures. AND, I look at them on my desktop with a large monitor.
yadda yadda get off my lawn yadda yadda
What if an alien – or perhaps a time traveler – who came to our current year without any knowledge of current technology, attempted to determine the history of computers just by putting them all in a room. He might have an iPhone, a netbook, a large laptop, and a full-sized desktop on the table. It would seem logical that the iPhone came first (too small to be really useful for many tasks), then the netbook (more practical), the laptop (bigger display, no need to squint or enlarge graphics), and finally, the desktop with a nice big display – maybe dual screens, a keyboard that fit human hands without compromise, and lots of space to plug in or connect stuff. Yeah, that’s the evolution of computing!
You can already do things like that. But it will never be as powerful as the top CPUs at the time, because top CPUs need a heat sink the size of Idaho and use almost as much electricity.
So those room-sized computers from the 50s must be really advanced!
Room-sized computers do presently exist - and they are really advanced.
The docking stations mentioned are a fix but generally a desktop setup can be a lot more ergonomic. Having the keyboard attached to the monitor means they can’t both be where they should.
We will have full screens and keyboards. But not an actual ‘Desktop PC’. It will be a thin client, and your C:\ drive will exist on a server, or perhaps the cloud.
They already do this for where I work for about 90% of the people.
Wow. According to Wikipedia:
Assuming that 32" monitor is at a distance of 2 feet, the human eye resolution of 0.016 degrees (for a line pair) corresponds to 0.00670 inches. A pair of pixels on that monitor is 0.00726 inches wide. That’s a pretty good match in terms of resolution, though I think I’d still prefer a larger absolute size. Take that 32" monitor and blow it up to 50" - with the same pixel count and viewing distance - and I’d be happy.
Generally size means room for more power. Miniaturization is expensive. The most powerful video card currently on the market, for example, could never fit in any smartphone, tablet, or even a laptop currently on the market. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Only a computer-illiterate time traveler would come to that conclusion (I know this might come off as an indirect slam on you but that is not intended)
The cloud will be the primary home for my data when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
You’re absolutely right- it’s a combination of size and power consumption, neither of which are generally an issue on a desktop, but which are prime considerations for laptops.
For example, I just put together a new PC. The pertinent parts would be the processor and video card. They’re a AMD Ryzen 3600x and a Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600XT. The 3600x draws as much as 95 watts of power, which means that it basically generates nearly as much heat as a 100 watt light bulb. The stock cooler, which runs at around 70 celsius(158 Fahrenheit) is 109 x 103 x 54 mm. A better aftermarket version is 124 x 103 x 157 mm. The video card is 254 x 135 x 46.5mm and runs using even more energy- between 150 and 200 watts.
Both of those require a lot of free-flowing air to cool their parts… to like 50-60c(120-140 degrees F). Laptops typically can’t run that hot, or users get uncomfortable.
There’s no way to fit comparable performance into a modern small laptop- maybe into one of those old 1990s laptops that was about the size and weight of a paving stone, I suppose.
Plus, running a 95 watt processor and a 200 watt processor requires a dramatic amount of battery capacity- using them for an hour would require a 300 w/hr battery, not including the screen, wi-fi, drives, etc…
Gaming laptops have batteries in the 6000 mAh/14.8v range, which translates into about 88 watt hours. So you could run the processor and video card for a little less than 18 minutes on that battery at full throttle.
So until we end up with something that dramatically decreases power consumption and/or increases battery capacity, desktops drawing wall power are going to outpace laptops in terms of power.
And the new 64-core AMD chip (with 256 MB of L3!) has a peak of 280 watts. I very, very seriously doubt that something to match that will ever show up in a phone, tablet, or even laptop.
I am using a 32-inch TV as a monitor.
When I initially set up my desktop, I planned to buy a dedicated monitor for it, but connected it to an LCD TV temporarily. But then I found, Hey it’s great playing games, and the resolution, refresh rate etc of the screen is perfectly fine for doing work.
No going back now.
I sure hope not. I’d hate to do serious work on something smaller than my laptop. As a previous poster stated, many tasks done on a phone are pure torture.
I think desktop PCs will go the way of manual transmissions: no longer the default, and perhaps hard to find, but still available for those with performance needs/desires.
At work, I’ve been issued only laptops for many years (at several different companies). Every few years there will be a switch between Dells and HPs, and there have been some experiments with Surfaces, but I haven’t seen a desktop PC in I don’t know how long. In order for the laptops to be usable I have to connect them to external monitors and wireless keyboards and mice, but I don’t mind that; I definitely prefer having laptops, because it’s much easier to work remotely.
At home, I used laptops for the longest time – also sometimes connected to an external monitor and wireless keyboard and mouse – but when it was time to upgrade in August 2018 I went with an all-in-one (basically, a desktop PC that looks like just a 27" monitor). It did feel a little like going backwards, and there are *still *moments when I have to remind myself that there’s no connected laptop I can just grab and take with me, but on the whole I’m quite happy with that configuration. (Though I do also have an iPad for casual use in the living room, on planes, etc.)
I work off a laptop connected via USB-C to a dock box which handles two large monitors, keyboard, mouse, and a couple spare USB ports I use for charging phones & stuff. Works swell.
OP got me to wondering whether now, or some day, the laptop could be replaced with the smartphone–both use USB-C. I’m not in the mood just now to do the science and see if I can bring my phone up on the monitors and prowl around in there with the mouse/keyboard.
You can already hook up bluthooth mice and keyboards to many smartphones, as well as cast your screen to a smart TV. Of course, you’re going to be limited to the capabilities of a smartphone and the user experience will be a little bit wonky.
I suspect that they’ll stay just about where they are; it’s not like laptops and tablets haven’t been around for about 25 (or more, depending on how you define a laptop) and 10 years respectively. Those who want a laptop or tablet to do their thing have already done so.
They’re definitely not as common as they once were, but they’re still inexpensive, reliable and configurable to a much greater degree than laptops.
I don’t think so. I prefer a laptop because its easy to move it if I have to, but I know too many people who like a stationery computer.