Hacker News Reader

So did Microsoft sell 350 million copies of Windows 7 in a year, or are desktops "increasingly niche devices"? I'm not sure the two positions are compatible.

Sure some of the win 7 sales are upgrades, but while growth of pc sales has slowed, pc sales are up.

Given the number of pc's out there running windows xp, and with no data to suggest that those machines will be _replaced_ by tablets, I think the assertion that desktop machines are "niche" is somewhat pre-mature.

So did Microsoft sell 350 million copies of Windows 7 in a year, or are desktops "increasingly niche devices"? I'm not sure the two positions are compatible.

Of course they're compatible. Laptops outsold desktops for the first time in 2005. See the attached chart for the US, which actually tends to lag the world in laptop vs desktop ratios:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/17/forrester-tablets-outsell-n...

Desktops are becoming a niche device. I do friends/family tech support on about 50 PCs. Of those about 10 are desktops. The other 40 are laptops (not saying my anecdote is data, but I don't think its unusual, and the actual data does suggest the same).

Ahh - ok - I see laptops, and desktops as basically the same thing in the context of the original discussion (which was on the merits of a tablet OS vs a PC OS).

So I guess my point is this -

Tablets have gotten huge market traction, and of course are all the rage as new models are announced and ship almost daily. but tablets are not great devices for "work". they're great consuming devices, fantastic for web browsing, you-tube, facebook, twitter and so on, but less great for "creation".

I'm not sure there are many _jobs_ where a tablet removes the need for a desktop (or laptop) - especially when it comes to the classic office functions (documents, spreadsheets, accounting, presentations, graphic or video creation, software development and so on.)

The tablet market will grow as it places a consumption device in the hands of consumers - however there are hundreds of millions of content producers already producing who are unlikely to give up their regular PC's, keyboard, mouse or big screen anytime soon.

I see laptops, and desktops as basically the same thing in the context of the original discussion (which was on the merits of a tablet OS vs a PC OS).

My niche comment was based on the fact that I think the new UI works for tablets and laptops. Less so for actual desktops. But I thought desktops were becoming more niche.

With that said, I agree with everything else you said. Tablets are great for consumption, not creation/productivity. This is actually why I like the Win8 approach if I can seamless hop between the two worlds.

they're great consuming devices

I think that's exactly his point. Most users of PCs are consumers, not producers. That consumption will move towards tablet devices because they are easier to use, while the fraction of users that are producers will decline.

What I expect to also happen is that the move to cheaper PC tablets will make other applications feasible that are now constrained by hardware costs.

It's just a reality distortion field, typical for developers. A couple of years ago I also thought desktop-Linux will completely replace Windows.

Truth of the matter is desktops still represent the largest market of devices consumers are buying and at least 90% of them run Windows. This whole post-PC notion is crappy and doesn't hold water - tables and smartphones are complementary products to desktops, and won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.

Don't forget laptops, though.

>won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.

Which is already possible... iPads and other tablets can use wireless keyboards. Motorola's recent stuff (Xoom, Atrix) have HDMI outputs.

> A couple of years ago I also thought desktop-Linux will completely replace Windows.

I don't understand how you could have ever thought that.

> Truth of the matter is desktops still represent the largest market of devices consumers are buying and at least 90% of them run Windows. This whole post-PC notion is crappy and doesn't hold water - tables and smartphones are complementary products to desktops, and won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.

There's a contingent of desktop users who just can't let go. The idea of things changing is a scary thought. Tablets are exploding in sales because they're fulfilling the ultimate goal of accessible computing. The maintenance hell of PCs, tying people to a desk, will be viewed as a fluke in an industry that was in its technological infancy, the same way we no longer hand-crank automobiles to start them.

You talk about connecting to a 21-inch monitor and using a keyboard and mouse as if people WANT to do that. People today are using game consoles and touchscreens. If they want to see something on a big screen, they'll plug their mobile devices into their giant HDTVs, or they'll use their Apple TV or their game console. With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming already died and went to consoles and mobile devices, and it's not as if PCs are going to let users watch YouTube videos, send email, or read books better than an iPad will.

Mobile devices are the futuristic vision of appliance computing that everyone has envisioned for decades. That leaves PCs as something leftover for power users. Steve Jobs gave a quote about desktop PCs, comparing them to pickup trucks. Most people won't need them, but they'll still be around for those who do.

but suppose the average user wants to write a long note on facebook (cause real non-techy people do not use email, anymore). They will also plug a keyboard. Now, you are back to have a big screen (tv, monitor) and a computing unit (pc, post-pc-device), and external input device.

You have a PC, again, except the tower casing is small enough and can be used independently.

"With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming already died"

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/115/1152453p1.html

There are a lot of empty boasts in ken's comment. 50M machines running Win8 in the first month? Not touch devices, that's for sure. The default OS for all tablets? Tablets have a default OS. Right now, it's iOS. Microsoft will have to beat them in the marketplace. What is there about Win8 that is going to do that? I can't see anything.

50M machines running Win8 in the first month? Not touch devices, that's for sure.

No, I agree. Some subset. But I think it will be substantial. Will it be 25M? 10M? Not sure, but it will be a lot.

The default OS for all tablets?

I meant the default UI for Windows tablets.

Microsoft will have to beat them in the marketplace. What is there about Win8 that is going to do that? I can't see anything.

While I can see the future pretty well, I'm not an opthamologist.

(Edited typo: OS => UI)

Oh yes the default OS for Windows tablets is Windows.

Shocking! I know.

^_^

Ugg, you're right... it's supposed to be the "default UI". It's correct in my original post, but I took on the language of the responder and said something technically incorrect. Good catch.

Exactly. MS's bread and butter is selling $400 laptops which may or may not even have touchscreens and it remains to be seen if a touchscreen UI makes sense on traditional laptop or desktop formfactor (Jobs convincingly argued "no" before unveiling OSX 10.7). So I disagree that this gives Microsoft any advantage in the tablet space.

Look at Microsoft's MediaCenter. It's great software and it's on every PC, but it's nothing like an industry standard because it's just not a normal PC use case.

Exactly. MS's bread and butter is selling $400 laptops which may or may not even have touchscreens and it remains to be seen if a touchscreen UI makes sense on traditional laptop or desktop formf actor

It definitely makes sense on a traditional laptop. Just there haven't been decent UIs for it. I wanted to get that Dell with the touchscreen that came out earlier this year, but Win7 wasn't ready for it.

Now regarding the pricepoint, it will have to go up, but not as much as you think. There are tablets today with good capacitive touchscreens selling for $150. Expect to see a 10-20% price bump, depending on screen size (although screen sizes in general will probably shrink). But I guarantee you that with this UI Costco will sell a LOT more $499 touchscreen laptops than the $400 non-touch equivalent.

Look at Microsoft's MediaCenter. It's great software and it's on every PC, but it's nothing like an industry standard because it's just not a normal PC use case.

The Media Center problem is a LOT different. The problem with the Media Center is you need a computer hooked up to your TV. Have you tried to hook one up? You need a video card with HDMI out, a quiet fan, some IR receiver for the remote (unless you put the computer in your entertainment rack), if you're using cable you need a CableCard tuner and the actual Cable Cards. I'm wore out just typing this in!

A Win8 tablet or touch laptop you buy and use. A Media Center was literally a weekend affair where you had to buy a bunch of stuff up front in preparation. I know, I used to use one with two extenders in the house.

"It definitely makes sense on a traditional laptop."

If you have a keyboard, a mouse (or trackpad), and a big screen in front of you, or if the laptop weighs much more than 1.5 lbs, "touch" really adds limited functionality and might actually be tiring to use for a lot of common tasks (requiring much more movement unless your work area is perfectly calibrated). I returned an iPad 1 because I thought it was a little too heavy to be enjoyably used. I can't imagine using touch software on a 5 lb laptop or my work desktop for any length of time. So again, as impressive as Win8 looks, I don't think it does much to position Microsoft against the iPad and Android unless unless we see some outrageous hardware breakthroughs from Microsoft's partners.

"Something everyone has traditionally understood, but its been forgetten (and honestly, largely irrelevent nowadays): Microsoft sells a boatload of copies of Windows."

Sticking to a cash cow while the world changes is a sure way to become irrelevant.

RTFP. Goodness.

Don't bury your lead. Greatness.

Since hearing about the ARM port, I've been wondering: how hard is it to port a .NET app to ARM?

Seems relevant to the topic (if it is easy, that's a whole bunch of apps), so I thought I'd ask.

Depends on a few questions:

1) Is there .NET on ARM? :-) I assume there is since Windows ships with .NET now.

2) Does the app use native code, e.g., COM interop? If so, you need to get the same COM interfaces tareting ARM.

3) Are you using any functionality that was deprecated and likely not carried over to a new platform?

If you satisfy all of those then its just like Java. Just copy the binary over and it gets JITted (or NGENed) on the ARM comoputer and runs just fine. No recompile, no extra work needed, besides maybe perf work since perf characteristics likely change.

That aligns with what I was thinking - I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

Thank you.