Comments on: Imagining the end of high-cost computing?

Take a look at what's happening with Atom-based Netbooks. Plus, the emergence of an intuitive free OS like Ubuntu. Then explain why you still need an expensive traditional PC at home.

[cnet_user_0]

Netbooks are for fasionable people -- oversized pocket computer! If you want real work done or hook up with your existing entertainment system, you need a laptop at least but preferably a desktop. Period.

You don't need a top-of-the-line machine to access Youtube BUT if you want to enjoy that experience, you need a good-sized screen (your 50" perhaps).

In times of recession, wait it out before buying a computer. Don't settle for less now only to regret later!

BTW, Linux was on desktops in the early nineties.

[Dango517]

"I think the combo of a low cost processor and free OS is the crux of this debate. "

Source: from a Charlie statement within the comments by mojojam.

Singling out the processor as the major cost component of a PC is incorrect. PCs are engineered as systems. High end PCs have system wide "high end" parts ...... Motherboard, CPU, RAM, hard drives, graphics cards. Low end processors usually mean low end systems.

PC and Laptop uses does very from individual to individual some want and need higher end PCs, others do not. Web 1 computers are primarily text based computers involved with and relying on text to carry it's message. Web 2 applications include media like video, audio, photography and 3D graphics. (Being a report I'm sure Charlie would like to see the continuance of web 1 based computing. LOL) Hardware trends do not reflect this, in fact the future computers running with not 1, 2 or even 4 cores but 40 cores and above maybe the norm. Graphics is the future.

About Linux, Linux has a "batch loading" kernel contained within the OS. This batch processing means that all components are thrown at the processor at once. Load too much in and you overwhelm the processor. For an efficient Linux system it must be kept lean, very lean. Windows has a registry that manages installed programs and loads them as they're needed. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. PCs are not servers. I'll stick with Windows.

The Linux community prides itself on the complexity of its OS. Complexity and lack of simplicity are not necessarily an indication of intelligence, in fact it might be just the reverse. The phrase "keep it simple stupid" comes to mind.

Linux is safe because no one uses it. Even the hackers are not foolish enough to waste there time on an OS no one uses.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

Lets say for the sake of argument this data is off by 3 or 4 percent, plus or minus ...................... so, still dismal performance by Linux. They have failed because of poor administration and bad ideas. This is unfortunate, there are many who can not afford Windows.

[obvio-capitao]

I'm waiting for the next generation of ARM netbooks.

Linux runs on ARM.

Mac OS X runs on ARM.

But Windows 7 doesn't run on ARM.

So, Microsoft will be locked out of the big party: $200 netbooks that boost 15 hours of battery life.

(I suppose there won't be much people interested in a *mobile* device that offers 4 hours of battery life... unless they plan to use the netbooks plugged all the time.)