The PC Is Not Dead 451
Belle writes "Bill Gates has an op-ed in this morning's BW Online, in which he responds to the magazine's question Is the PC dead? with a resounding "No!" and argues that the most revolutionary years for personal computing are yet to come." From the article: "The result is that the personal computer has become far more than a cog in the machine of corporate computing -- it's an essential tool for every individual in the organization. Take the personal out of computing, and most companies would grind to a halt."
Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
If businesses switch to the 'thin client' model, or anything similar, then this will be a step backwards, technologically speaking, and it will be a decision which is based entirely on financial motives. Those who appreciate technology will have little reason to follow this lead, and therefore will not.
On the other hand, those home users who do not enjoy technology, who simply wish to treat their computer as a dumb interface to DRMed MP3s and the web/email will probably be delighted with a 'thin client'. There will still continue to be money in the other market for a while, though. As for 'thin clients' in the office, then I say, sure, they will take off there - it's a cost thing. They just won't kill the home PC. That's my take on this.
Last of all: Is it just me or does someone predict this every year? I first heard it in about 1996, and I'm still waiting! This claim wears even more thin with every passing year...
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. It's simply a realization that for some users within an organization, a full fledged workstation is not required. If someone is only using their computer for Office, web and email, it doesn't merit paying for a full workstation; a thin client will suit them just fine. Such a move does not imply a failure to appreciate technology.
Also, I wouldn't quickly right off thin-client server systems as being technologically backwards. It takes some amount of neat tech to make a thin client seem as, or near as, rich as a full workstation.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Administration costs are insane for large corporations. Thin clients make that task a little more manageable. Only problem is when the main servers go down you're killing not just one user but a whole organization.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you've hit the nail on the head right there--PCs are so cheap today. When you can get a full Dell (just for example) with monitor for only a few hundred dollars, thin clients have a much harder time being justified--especially since you're going to need some kind of server for them to run off of, the cost of which would be spread out accross all clients when comparing to a stand-alone PC. And, for most work uses, these cheapo PCs are more than enough. If you need more (i.e., graphic artists), you probably wouldn't be going with a thin client anyway.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You must lock down windows to keep all of the trojans, trashy games, etc. that will destroy your stable environmment otherwise.
Need I point out that I've seen thin client apps having problems on certain machines? The browser itself is very fat and full of i
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is usually false, both in terms of hardware cost, lifetime expectancy, power consumption, and deployment cost, yadda yadda. Any way you slice it, a workstation is not cheaper than any but the most unfairly-priced and poorly-designed thin client.
> It's stupid to waste all this computing power, only to channel more and more
> money into more and more powerfull app servers.
A bunch of single processer machines, each with its own board, memory, IO, fans, footprint and power supply (w/ AC-DC transformer) is neccessarily more "wasteful" in terms of resources than a WTS running on an SMP machine. That's basic physics. When the cost between one and the other becomes insignificant, then you start to have a point; or if you're rich enough, maybe it doesn't matter. Nowadays, though, it usually does.
> We've got incredibly cheap computing power that would have been unimaginable
> even 20 years ago, lets not waste it all - design ways to leverage to power of
> workstations while alleviating the administrative overhead.
That's exactly what VM clusters and terminal servers do. For workstations, the best you can do is: imaging, or scripted installs with SMS/Netinstall; either case requires a server infrastructure anyway. So you're back to having thick clients AND extra machines in the back room (which are idle most of the time, like fat clients).
This is an age-old argument, and there are sometimes cases where thick clients are a must-have (3D or even 2D graphics, or non multi-user aware apps, for example). But most users can go without and suffer no loss in productivity; hell, they can even benefit, because it's easier and cheaper to engineer reliability into the system.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the mainframe word processor kinda sucked.
That's a pretty big problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Only problem is when the main servers go down you're killing not just one user but a whole organization.
Uh, that's a pretty big problem.
But then again, a single point of failure usually is.
Re:That's a pretty big problem. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
I would. Definitely. But maybe we're not talking about the same thing; I want modularization. I'd take the following over current offerings in a heartbeat:
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be too surprised if the home of 2015 has all of the storage on a file server appliance, and the things that act like PCs boot off of USB sticks and look a lot like flat panel iMacs.
Desktops will never offload the processing power, because processing is cheaper than comm
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not the only one. Bill's article distinctly lacked reasoning, at least as would apply to rebutting what Nicholas Carr said. Carr's main point is that modern PCs are ridiculously overpowered for the needs of the typical home or office user. I couldn't agree more, and Bill's predictable road-ahead fluff piece didn't address that point at all. Yeah Bill, we know computers and software are going to keep evolving and all sorts of cool things are going to happen. But does the average desk jockey need a 3GHz processor, 160Gb hard drive and 19-inch LCD monitor to send email, run Excel and Word, and surf the web? No. That's all Carr was really saying.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You will need all that extra processing power and hard drive to drive all the spyware, adware and viruses that will be comming out.
Now I am still trying to understand why the cashier at walmart needs a full fledged PC, just to sell me my stuff.
Or any call center agent....
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do consulting for a major Wall Street firm. Their VPN/Remote Access solution includes the ability to use Citrix to access Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, etc. 80% of their workforce can access all the tools they need to do their day-to-day job from any half way decent internet connected pc.
On top of that, if someone needs to access a non-standard app, they can use Citrix to access their own desktop via Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connectivity.
Even working as a developer, the only time I've ever needed to actually go to the desktop is to insert a usb thumb drive. Citrix has solutions for this as well, however, allowing you to use local USB devices like thumbdrives and printers as if they were attached to the remote machine.
With this level of remote computing, it is very easy to "pull the PC's from the desktop" for most users. Just assuming for a moment that you want to continue with a Microsoft based environment, you'd probably do the following...
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
VNC +GDM - Remote Desktop Functionality
GNOME - Desktop Environment
Firefox - Web
Thunderbird - Mail
Sunbird - Calendaring
OpenOffice.org - Office Apps
GIMP - Image editing
Xine - Media player
XMMS - MP3/OGG player
WINE - For those "must have" Windows apps/games
GAIM - IM
DOSBox - For old DOS games
OpenVPN - To remotely access our VNC desktops
Printing is handled by the centrally attached Epson Photo printer and the "thin clients" are laptops with wireless NICs, custom scripts and VNC clients.
It works very well for our needs. I would say that the only needs not met by this set up are things like scanning photos (since the server is headless in the basement, putting a scanner down there would be inconvenient) and 3D games that need fast screen performance. This would be better if I moved to 802.11G probably. (hehehe.. I've played Quake 3 using VNC over an SSH tunnel viw a DSL line. Too slow to be playable, but it works) My point with all of this? It's possible to do this sort of thing. The fact that a non-geek like me can set it up indicates that it can certainly be done by experienced developers. It's just that no one has tried hard enough or had a decent plan to do it. Realistically, if the bandwidth was available on a wireless device and it was no more than a display, kb, mouse and audio terminal for a really powerful backend box, this WOULD take off for the home user. Why should our desktops be married to one location? That's just stupid. Your desktop should be accesible everywhere with all functionality available. The only thing that needs to catch up is bandwidth.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Go back and re-read your post... That seems to be some big geek mojo to me.
-N
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Truly sir, you contradict yourself. Anyone running a wireless Linux thin-client network out of their house is inherently a geek. No matter how many nights a week you play softball, attend the opera, or whatever it is you may do, you are most assuredly a geek. Fortunately, you seem to have found the proper support group.
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Down near the end of that JE is a link to an old account of mine that explains how to use VNC and GDM together for session management. It's all pretty straightforward. I'll admit that one problem with my 'vncconnect' script is that if the remote desktop was left connected on one laptop, it will get disconnected by your new connection. This, in and of itself isn't
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I decorate my room with computers, you insensitive clod. I have one atatched to the wall behind me. This is Slashdot after all.
Citrix sucks compared to X anyway, except on the ease-of-use factor for the majority of business desktop users (open browser, click link on homepage, enter password, application appears). Come to think of it, I've seen X running that way too.
X uses a lot less resources on the machine where the application i
Re:Maybe next year, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, IMHO, X still looks a lot like Windows 3.1 graphics. Kind of clunky. The KDE stuff on m
Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
Wake me when Bill Gates runs Linux on his Mac.
Mox
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, some mornings I'd like to sleep forever as well. So wake me when OS-X runs on PC hardware.
IPod... Heh, how cute. Must... not... mention... Vorbis!
Re:Vorbis is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Without support from the leading music player software
WinAmp plays Vorbis files just fine, thankyouverymuch. Oh, you meant that proprietary DRM-crippled bag of bits needed to redeem my winning Pepsi caps? Feh.
Actually, for accuracy, I would have to say "Windows Media Player plays Vorbis files just fine". But as you can well imagine, I find that even more intolerable than iTunes. And, since WinAmp comes in as #2 (with iTunes somewhere around #6, I believe), it
Re:Yawn (Score:2)
semantics really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:semantics really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:semantics really (Score:2)
Re:semantics really (Score:2)
PC is dead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PC is dead (Score:4, Interesting)
In response to this article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In response to this article (Score:2)
That sounds a little scary.
zerg (Score:5, Funny)
I recommend slashdot host a discussion panel, mc chris on one side, Bill Gates on the other.
Re:zerg (Score:2)
were the pc dead then apple would have to start scrambling on to thin clients or whatever..
That's funny. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's funny. (Score:3, Insightful)
He amassed his weatlh in the PC business. One might say that's a measurement of success. One might also say that such a successful person is qualified to speak about it more so than a random journalist. If he says positive things about it, where's your pile of cash that qualifies you to argue about it?
Now granted, I'll immediately concede that most of Microsoft's success comes from less than ethical business practices and marketing, rather than technology innovation.
I'd also admit that I d
Re:That's funny. (Score:2)
That was pretty good. You had me there for a while. Then I realized it was the evil twin of 'Twifosp' from an alternate dimension.
I should have known from the evil-goatee beard you were wearing while you typed.
Re:That's funny. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just that, but most of Billy's wealth is still amassed as stock shares, which is potential wealth. Ie, that wealth isn't really his yet. So if he ever says anything disparaging against Microsoft he'll LOSE a truckload of money if the share price goes down.
That's why I really don't understand why investors take the
Re:That's funny. (Score:5, Funny)
My head hurts from the market speak. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill may think web services are the next great thing for the PC "ecosystem" (WTF? when did my office become wild planet?), but quite frankly, he needs to worry about making the PC safe, secure, and usable first.
Re:My head hurts from the market speak. (Score:2)
Bashing of his interests in the debate aside, a "Viewpoint" piece really should be devoid of marketingspeak, whether the author is Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Linus Torvalds.
Ears? (Score:3, Funny)
I just read that so called op-ed piece and I think my ears may be bleeding from the sheer amount of marketing speak.
Next time don't read the article aloud - just move your lips as you go.
HTH. HAND.
Diverse Ecosystem? (Score:5, Funny)
The only "diverse ecosystem" I know of lives in my dirty laundry.
Re:Diverse Ecosystem? (Score:3, Funny)
Is yoru underwear really "laundry" if you never launder them? Just wondering...
The PC is not dead? (Score:5, Funny)
So...boring...losing...consciousness... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Long time ago dumb terminals look now richly appointed digital tapestry personal computing unleash potential provide collaborative strategic business enhancers future digito-infotainment convergence aggregation hub integrating synergies for advancement of opportunity. Buy more. Thanks. Oh, and thin clients suck, give people their own hard drive for all the above to happen. Thanks again."
Seriously, is there anything notable here? So very insight-free.
Dumb Terminals For Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
And now with Flash memory sticks, you can run entire environments separate from the OS entirely!
Re:Dumb Terminals For Everyone (Score:5, Funny)
Administrator Logs: March 22 2005
Remote Application Usage:
word.exe 14
excel.exe 9
access.exe 3
powerpoint.exe 53
sol.exe 13420194
Re:Dumb Terminals For Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure the PC isn't dead? (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm getting better!" (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal computing today is a rich ecosystem... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not dead but very sick... (Score:5, Interesting)
- invasion from parasitical software
- competition from smaller devices
- competition from web-based services
- ever cheaper hardware
Of course I'm typing this from a PC and I can't imagine any other way of working, but still... in 10 years' time:
- would I have to move physically to a box somewhere in order to read slashdot?
- would I have my data sitting on a single hard disk somewhere under a desk?
- would I be surfing on the public Internet using the same infrastructure as I use to (e.g.) access my bank accounts or write contract proposals?
The PC as "personal computer" is running out of reasons for being...
The PC will eventually be relegated to a keyboard, mouse, and screen.
The PC Is Evolving, Not Dying (Score:5, Insightful)
What we're seeing is really the continuation of the gradual shift from "big iron" mainframes to "microcomputers" to PCs to PDAs to iPods. Technology is becoming cheaper, more flexible, and more diversified.
I think the traditional PC is close to saturation. Where the money is are in things like media center/home theater PCs, secondary computers, and specialized machines. Since most everyone has a PC, the real quest is to use PC technology to replace other existing gadgets.
That's why small cheap computers like the Mac mini and home theater systems like Microsoft's Media Center Edition systems are growing while the PC market itself is relatively stagnant in comparison to the boom years.
Of course, the massive success of the iPod also points to a totally new market for consumer electronics that interfaces with a traditional PC acting like a "digital hub" as Steve Jobs calls it. That's why media features like DVD burners, FireWire and memory card inputs and large displays are the big selling points in PCs these days. It's not about a monolithic device that makes you sit in front of it to do everything, it's about a whole slew of gadgets that work seamlessly together to perform different tasks.
The concept of the PC won't go away, but the way in which PCs are used is slowly changing. It's like evolution usually goes - the big creatures die out and those smaller more agile ones flourish in the aftermath.
Year after year (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is that these are plain shots in the dark.
IMHO the PC is far from becoming dead, and I am happily watching as tech honchos tear their hairs off as most of the world population refuses to upgrade their equipment/software in 2 year-cycles, and realizes that 1ghz of ANYTHING plus 256MB of ANYTHING plus a 20GB drive is more than plenty for the average user
Bunk (Score:2)
Meh. We'll wait and see.
HBH
This is about mid-level, office computer usage (Score:5, Insightful)
As computers get more and more powerful, I think it's going to mostly affect the two groups of users at the opposite ends of the spectrum: super-users and home users. Super users are those who need all the power they can get, all the time. These are the people working in medicine, in modeling, 3D work, video, etc...
Then you have the home users. Why will this effect home users more than corporate users? Because home usersdo more things! They'll start experimenting with audio and video on the computer (many of them already do). They'll try to run the latest games.
Finally, you have the middle-of-the-road office computer users - probably the very ones that BusinessWeek was originally talking about. These are the people whose PCs are supposedly doomed. And they might be. But the PC as a whole (as the Slashdot title would have us believe?) Not a chance.
Just One More Vulnerability (Score:2, Informative)
These people couldn't give a shit about your responsibility to maintain security; they want the latest mouse cursors and to answer that email from Zimbabwe.
Remove there ability to affect the rest of the network. Remove their PC and give them a thin clien/dumb terminal.
Reminds me of the quote from "Scandal" (Score:2)
"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Isn't Bill always like this? (Score:4, Insightful)
And then shortly after such claims, he always follows them up by pointing out that Windows will, of course, be there, paving the way for the next wave of computing.
There's something about overly optimistic people that make me immediately doubt what they're claiming. Bill's no exception... By always ignoring the bad (Windows exploits, virii, etc), and gushing about the very operating system which is causing most of these problems, he really paints a picture of someone who's totally out of touch with the modern computing scene.
To me at least...
Yet, Windows isn't geared toward business (Score:5, Insightful)
Automation (Score:2)
Isn't this what a good expect [nist.gov] script is for? ;-)
South Park had it right (Score:2, Funny)
Gates: It is!! Over 78% more [BANG! the general shoots him in the head]
[Gates falls dead]
He is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he misses the opportunity to talk about isn't if the PC is going away, but "does Windows matter"? The last company I was at switched 95% of the company to Open Office to save costs (a 400 person environment for huge saving for them). Many of the penetration testers and security analysts I work with now use Macs because they can get to all of the UNIX tools they need without having to reboot into Windows to work on Microsoft Office files. (I know, they could do that in Crossover, but the Macs are easier - and these are hard core OpenBSD/Linux guys).
So the question is, does Windows dead? No, not yet, and I think like IBM they will always be around. But others are nipping at the heals, between Firefox on one end, consoles (which is eating away a lot of the game market from the PC), Apple is rising again (back to 5% by the end of this year by some analysts) - so MS can't just use the monopoly as a battering ram to force Windows on everyone.
They kind of remind me of Napoleon's march in Russia. Lots of momentum, big army, took over everything - but over time, the things that Napoleon couldn't fight (the weather, like Free software compitition), or supply chains (consoles eating away at the game market), or just dumb luck (Apple's iPod success turning into a method to draw users to buy new Macs, especially at $600 a pop) brought him down. Maybe 10, 15 years from now we'll look back at a market 33% Windows, 33% Apple, and 33% Linux (on the desktop - the server I imagine will be 40% Windows, 40% Linux/Unix, 20% Apple) and wonder how it all happened.
Funny that one of Mr. Gate's big heroes is Napoleon. I hadn't remembered it until I was almost done writing this.
The PC isn't dead, but PC innovation is (Score:5, Interesting)
The circumstances that led to the PC revolution are long since past. When the anti-trust case against Microsoft was settled four years ago with no consequences, investors and entrepreneurs were told that there is no reason to bother to do anything Microsoft might have an interest in, because Microsoft would be free to use the Windows monopoly to crush them.
During the dot-com boom, almost all software talent went to Internet development, sucking the oxygen out of innovation meant for the PC. Bringing things on-line is important and valuable, but the 10,000th brochure website, or even the second on-line bookstore, is not innovation.
The dot-com crash in Silicon Valley has meant the loss of 400,000 jobs there and 400,000 people moving out of the valley. It's debatable how much of this is due to outsourcing, but for every job lost to some other location, that's one fewer young engineer cooking up ideas in a garage. India and China have gained, but the software industry has lost something by the scattering of young talent; the disappearance of tech veterans has long-term consequences, too.
There are still business opportunities in cleaning up security messes and customization of enterprise software products, and there always will be, but none of this really counts as innovation.
When I moved to Silicon Valley in 1995, it wasn't obvious that Microsoft was going to dominate the way it does today, or that the Internet would suck the oxygen out of other kinds of software projects for a while. The smart money and adventurous people have moved on to other things. Forever.
Garr's Idiotic Sturm and Drang (Score:2)
And when it comes to hosted
How long have we been hearing this drivel? (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is the PC not dying, it's uses are being expanded more every day. And the onslaught of gaming consoles certainly hasn't hurt the PC, or PC gaming. If there was ever an "Internet enabled PC killer", that should've done it. Keep in mind that many of the people predicting the PC's demise are manufacturers of these competing devices. It's in their interest to tell you not to buy a PC, but to buy their gadget instead.
PC Economics according to Microsoft: (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost of Windows XP Professional: $299 plus taxes.
Cost of hardware: apparently $0
Re:PC Economics according to Microsoft: (Score:5, Informative)
Businesses can't use XP Home because you can't log into a domain server with it etc.
I was of course being a little facetious in that some businesses can get volume discounts for licenses either directly from MS, or more likely, through their hardware provider e.g. Dell.
My main point is valid though in that Windows XP Professional is priced obscenely high when compared to the hardware it runs on. Compare the current situation to the one 17 years ago when an average PC cost $2000+ and MS-DOS was ~$80 dollars.
Yes Windows XP does a lot more than DOS did, but the hardware does a a hell of a lot more too (orders of magnitude), and for LESS money.
Personal computing will thrive, but the PC won't (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
For digital rights, the PC must live. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a lot easier to overcome fair-rights-denying DRM on a console where you can run and write programs that do this for you. It is a lot harder on an "Audrey", an iPod, or a Palm Pilot.
Do you think there would be anything like "PlayFair"/ hymm (which let us listen on our own machines to something we paid for) for iTunes files if iPods typically were connected directly to the Internet for music download, and there was no PC or Mac in between?
And there is much of my quarrel with BillG (Score:5, Interesting)
Some very useful computation is not personal, interactive, exploratory, or "an experience". And Microsoft traditionally just didn't "get" this. Like the old robots in Asimov's "Runaround", supposedly automatic processes just won't go without a human in the saddle giving orders. They are getting better at this, but still have far to go in order to catch up with the 1960s, let alone the 21st century.
I often laugh bitterly when I hear about the "increased productivity" attributed to gadgets that make me do everything manually rather than just doing the work and sending me a note on how it went.
If you want my recommendation for your software product, ask yourself, "would there be any point in having this run automatically when nobody is around?" And if the answer is "yes", *make it easy to do so*.
Grinding to a halt... (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies like, oh say... Microsoft.
Bill Gates- "The PC is not dead... (Score:5, Funny)
the pc is dying (Score:2)
And the DRM and MPAA and the.... are the ones instigating. Only time will tell, but I've always felt PC's are mostly a novelty and the ONLY thing that has kept the buying public in lockstep so far has been the ongoing promise of "This time we really really mean it when we say we've vastly improved it (Microsoft, especially), and it is MUCH easier to use...", with the implicit eventual promise PC's will become sublime. If you've ever read the Peanuts cartoon, and remember the ongoing relationship between Lu
Mr. Gates has selective memory (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when IBM (IBM ) launched its first personal computer in 1981, business computing was a scarce resource. If a company was large enough even to afford computers, they were mostly so-called dumb terminals hooked up to large mainframe computers.
Mr. Gates seems to forget the Apple II, which a lot of businesses owned before 1981. IBM did not create the idea of personal computers for business, they merely responded (grudgingly) to their customers.
Bill should know this - unless he's forgotten that his company existed before 1981 - he's no doubt just trying to spin it his way. In any case he doesn't actually address the issues in the original article which argues that intranet/internet based applications will make life easier for corporate computing.
People who can only spin the past are likely to be spun by the future.
PC inefficiency (Score:2, Insightful)
Just the claps. (Score:3, Funny)
For screwing up the Jumble caper.
I hope I don't see its name in the paper.
In the obituarieeees,
'cause that would mean that it's dead
The PC Is Not Dead
I'm so glad the PC is not Dead.
Other things that are not dead! (Score:5, Insightful)
Film is not dead! I can buy those familiar yellow boxes of it right in my supermarket checkout line!
Vinyl LPs are not dead! DJ's still use them and you can buy new turntables in Best Buy!
The vacuum tube is not dead! Audio hobbyists still insist on them!
CP/M is not dead! It survives on in Novell Netware servers! Which are not dead, either!
The Oldsmobile is not dead! I still see them on the road!
VHF analog broadcasts are not dead!
Typewriters are not dead! Carbon paper is not dead! Slide rules are not dead! Rotary calculators are not dead! The Bodoni typeface is not dead! The Cinerama wide-screen process is not dead! Spirit duplicators and mimeograph machines are not dead!
Bill Gates is not dead! And neither am I!
But Bill Gates and I are both older than we used to be.
I get the same reponse . . . (Score:2, Funny)
semantic gripes with TFA (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it just me or does Moore's Law say nothing about networking, storage, or software? And also, hasn't the pace of technology been not quite keeping up with the Law recently? For example, despite other enhancements such as faster buses, CPU clock speed seems to have hovered around 3 GHz for a while.
Hmm... if Bill Gates can be this intellectually lazy, maybe Linux ha
CorporatePC is dying,the chief architect killed IT (Score:3, Interesting)
As "chief software architect", Bill Gates is responsible for killing a lot of in-house client side development. And don't make the claim that .NET is going to improve that situation, because Microsoft is going to introduce yet another major paradigm shift with Avalon.
Read Vendor Dependent Death Marches VS Open Kaizen [slashdot.org]
Bill's right [this time] (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the down side is the wife always complaining when we go somewhere that their bathroom doesn't light itself.
The iMac has slid in comfortably as a entertainment device -- almost beating out TiVO. For sound nothing beats another device - the SliMP3 player which happens to tap the iMac for its source of music. Of course
There's only one thing missing in everything I've mentioned: MICROSOFT
Don't know whether to laugh or cry (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean Microsoft would grind to a halt.
Take the personal out of computing, and most companies would slingshot themselves to mach speed in terms of productivity.
The PC is the "Mainframe" of the Networked Home (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would anyone ask? (Score:3, Funny)
And from the other side of his mouth... (Score:3, Funny)
"Now, let's talk about Web Services!"
Take the "Personal" out of Business (Score:4, Informative)
I seriously doubt this.
One of the problems with "Business computing" is that it's become far too personal. While a business user may want the latest, greatest version of Webshots/RealAudio/Screen Saver of the Month, they don't actually need any of the "personalised" touches to perform their basic job.
System administration is hard enough with just operating system(1) and hardware variables(2) mucking things up. Adding personalization privileges to a few hundred end users, while nice and sweet on an emotional level, quite frankly causes more problems than a business should have to deal with.
It is completely uneccesssary for a user to be able to spend hours online looking for the perfect wallpaper. Equally unecessary for things like Solitaire or Minesweeper. While I laud Microsoft for introducing millions of people to computers (thus creating my field), I really hate the fact that the touchy-feely approach to user hand holding is the largest contributing factor to a slew of problems like viruses, spyware and spam. I used to love my job, but now, it's become just that: a job. A job where a significant portion of my day is spent explaining to users things like, "Just because the flash games website demands ShockwaveX, doesn't mean I'll be making a 30 mile trip to upgrade the version you currently have installed."
1) Whichever f*cker thought it'd be a bright idea to have Windows do a scheduled task scan of the entire network EVERY TIME Windows Explorer launches should be shot . . . multiple times.
2) Two words: "DLL Hell".
Re:no shit sherlock? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:no shit sherlock? (Score:2)
The PC isn;t dead, just that so many ar filled with spyware, worms, virii and other crap that it might be more merciful and productive to give many users a "dumb terminal", or at least a web-based app that can emulate the functionality of one.
Re:no shit sherlock? (Score:2)
Re:Im cynical. (Score:2, Informative)