well more like they buy a new pc every 3-4 but them buy constant upgrades… but every so often someone makes a game that requires a new pc set up … there used ot be a sort of meme when someone bought a pc that was "will it play crysis " because the first game was soo advanced that it took pcs like years to be able to play it on max settings some people say they still cant …
you dont need a new pc to use ms word or most business applications ect until the os changes but if world of warcraft makes a deal with Nvidia to use their next graphics system with their next expansion and stop supporting anything else (like AMD graphic cards and such) people will be buying new cards motherboards and such ot be able to support the new cards and the like and then the pc makers will start putting in the new graphics in the new pcs and there ya go
I’m in the camp that thinks phones will overtake desktop PCs and laptops for most use (I agree that power-user applications like gaming, software development and video-editing will require more power than a phone can provide).
A modern high-end phone has more than enough raw power to run email, browsing, word processing and the kind of simple spreadsheets most office users (and everyday consumers) use. The limiting factor is in the user interfaces.
I think we’ll see a world where phones are paired with docking stations, which will be connected to traditional screens and input devices. When the phone is plugged into the dock, it will reconfigure the UI to optimise it for keyboard, mouse and a big screen. When the phone isn’t connected to the dock, it will revert to a touch UI.
There have been a couple of attempts at this already: Windows Continuum died a death, and I haven’t seen Samsung DeX take over the world yet, but sooner or later, someone will get it right. It’s a very compelling use case if you don’t need raw power, which many users don’t.
Yeah, but the OP’s question wasn’t about what will be good enough for most people, it was “will laptops, smartphones and tablets become as powerful as desktop PCs…?” and the answer to that is a clear “no.” For any level of processing technology, the amount of processing power that can be delivered by a CPU connected to a wall outlet and aggressive cooling system will always be more than from one designed for a very limited battery and minimal cooling. It is like asking if mopeds will ever have more towing ability than pickup trucks.
It’s kind of two questions:
- Will they become as powerful as desktops?
- Will they make them obsolete?
The answers (IMHO) are:
-
No. Just read what smarter people (like Darren Garrison) have already written
-
Well, kinda. In the beginning, there were only ‘room’ computers. And then came ‘mini’ computers that were as big as a desk and then came desktops that could sit on a desk and then came laptops that were as big as, you know, a lap. And each thing has effectively made the previous thing obsolete.
Now, will there be literally no more desktops? I don’t think so, but they will become such as small portion of the overall market that they could be considered obsolete.
And, as pointed out above, laptops are often docked so that a full keyboard and multiple monitors can be connected. This, per my definition, is still a laptop.
It makes me wonder which elements shrunk the most at each step? What was the miniaturization bottleneck or rooms vs mini vs desktop?
The bottleneck? Size. The solution? Microcircuitry. Room-size IBM-360 mainframes were filled with zillions of circuit boards sporting individual transistors and components. DEC LSI-11 desk-size minis packed much denser circuits on smaller boards, and PC desktops took that even further. Now we have more functionality than that System 360 in a smart watch because Moore’s Law.
Which reminds me. A nearby thread asks about rich people being generous. MrsRico and I just visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium where a particularly prominent exhibit was funded by Mr & Mrs Gordon Moore of Silicon Valley, the Moore of Moore’s Law: computing power doubles every 18 months. He’s been right since 1970.
A touch of irony to this thread. I was looking for a 2TB HP Desktop tower from Costco Canada and they appear to be sold out.
Larger computers didn’t really become obsolete, there is still a need for large systems, which is why we have still have mainframes, mini’s, etc., or a recreation of them by combining multiple computers and storage together to try to reach those levels of performance.
Smaller devices took over the jobs that don’t require the amount of power found in larger machines.
Yep. And now that we’ve all had a taste of a serious global pandemic I hope it will at least broaden our minds so we can begin to seriously make plans and set aside money for other global existential crises.
One that we already know a lot about is ongoing and will eventually kill most organisms on Earth if we don’t act bigly and soonly. But there is another enormous crisis awaiting us with the potential to kill millions and destroy trillion of wealth and it’s only a matter of time. To wit–a serious worldwide disruption in the flow of data, probably manifesting in the web/internet/cloud and/or in satellite, microwave, hard-wire and other distribution systems.
So yeah. I’m not about to count on the Cloud with irreplaceable data any more than I’m gonna chew on used facemasks in a Covid hospital.
Not sure if it got mentioned yet, but another avenue for the desktop computer is the hobbiest and educational sector.
I picked up a raspberry pi a couple days ago, and I’m delighted with it, and impressed by the size of the community and the breadth of projects that are being worked on.
Of course, when the desktop in question is barely the size of a credit card, the difference between it and a laptop or tablet might be considered moot.
Maybe I’m wrong, and better phones than mine have this. But it seems pretty clear to me that my phone’s camera doesn’t have any optical zoom, just digital: IOW, to make something a ways off look closer, it’s just spreading the pixels further apart, resulting in a more blurry image. While the $70 camera I picked up at Wal-Mart a few months ago has 8x optical zoom, so you can zoom in on stuff without loss of clarity.
The irritating thing is, since I always have the phone with me, I never have the stand-alone camera when I need it, dammit. 
THIS. The desktop I’m typing at right now cost ~$200, and it’s got basically that (2 TB hard drive and only 8 gig of RAM, but other than that, right on the money) plus I’ve got a ~$300 laptop for portability, so I can get on the Web from my recliner or the back deck. (Yeah, I could do that from a tablet or phone, but writing a post like this one on a tablet or phone is really tedious, while it’s easy on the laptop. Tablets/phones are fine if you’re mostly reading stuff and only doing minimal writing, but that’s not my style. :))
I preordered one of these a short while ago: http://nexdock.com/touch/
Better phones than yours have this. There are models with 2x, 3x, 5x, and 10x optical zoom. (The highest zooms are not cheap, but they will work their way down the food chain.)
(BTW, the phone with the 10x optical zoom–the Galaxy S 20 Ultra–does up to 100x optical/digital hybrid using superresolution. According to reviews 100x sucks but 30x is pretty darn good.)
Wow!
So how much do these phones cost, that have these really nice cameras? More than a cheaper phone plus my run-of-the-mill inexpensive camera, I know - but the payoff is you don’t have to carry two separate gizmos around: you always have that feature in your pocket.
I’d probably pay an extra couple hundred to have a 5x or better optical zoom on my next phone (my current one is ~8 months old, so we’ll see what works its way down the food chain in a couple of years), and not sure how much on top of that I’d pay for that 30x superresolution, but it would be pretty damn awesome to have that built into my phone. 
The Samsung Galaxy S 20 Ultra ranges from $1400 to $1600. Like I mentioned, not cheap. But 2 years from now you’ll probably see the same camera in a $300 Galaxy A model.
This review has an example of all the zoom levels.
No, you’d have a local cache. And honestly, I lose internet connectivity these days about as often as I lose electricity. Which I can’t think of a case where either has happened in the past four years (the length of time I’ve been at my current residence.) (*)
Cloud is already my standard storage. And it’s a way better world. Not only do I not lose anything, other than re-setup time if my laptop crashes/is stolen/lost, but I don’t have to listen to anyone else’s tales of woe about losing critical documents. It’s also painless to move between devices.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a future where not only is the cloud your standard storage, but it’s your standard compute, too, if you need anything more than email/web/office apps. Desktops would still be around, but really only for that intersection of cases where you need a high level of compute and low-latency, such as gaming.
(*) Ok, I did lose internet once when contractors were doing some work in the basement, and when setting things back up, plugged the fiber into the wrong port in the modem. I guess those modems are designed for use in multi-family dwellings, where each port gets mapped to a unit. For a single-family house, they only turn on one of them, and for whatever reason, it wasn’t port 1 in my case.
Last I looked, you don’t get a local cache if you use the cloud with Macs. And I lose internet connection with some frequency; plus which, when I do have it, the connection is very slow. It’s annoying enough to watch some websites download line by line; I don’t want any of my documents doing that!
I understand the cloud’s really useful for people who want to be able to access the same data from multiple computers in multiple locations (most or all of which have good connections). I’m not doing that; I have maybe about three days in an average year when that might be useful and I can plan around those. And I don’t trust the cloud as a backup, because it’s not under my control. I back up onto a portable hard drive and a couple of thumb drives, at least one of which is always off-site.