Re: why can't we have interesting wintrolls?

"John Slade" <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"KDT" <scarface...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

The "average" user is buying a laptop -- so the "average" user seems
not to care about expandability?  What is your definition of failure?
It was introduced in 2005 and is still selling after four or five
revisions.

You are putting "average" in the wrong context.

Wrong for John's argument, but little else. Its an irrefutable fact
that a whole hell of a lot of consumers are forgoing the "desirement"
of expandability in favor of other factors, as manifested by Laptops
currently being as frequently purchased as a desktop:

http://www.news.com/PC-milestone--notebooks-outsell-desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205208804

The Mini is a failure
in that it is not as powerful as a desktop of the same price.

By that measuring stick, then all notebooks & laptops are "failures"
too. Gosh!


It's a laptop
for the desk. It has laptop components and the laptop lack of speed. Laptops
are for those who need portablility in a computer.

That's one need, sure...but is it the _only_ need? Sorry, no.


A user wanting the most
bang for the buck would buy a desktop and a laptop if they need it.

Also wrong. A user wanting the most bang for the buck is only going
to buy one system, regardless of what it is.

When the warranty runs out on a Dell, HP or Apple
computer, you're going to get charged through the nose for repairs.

Right...if my memory or hard drive goes bad, I absolutely must take it
to Apple for repairs.  Those about the only parts I've seen go bad on
most computers.

Then you haven't been around computers for long. Power supplies burn
out, motherboards can become damaged and even CPUs go bad.

These failures also happen too, but they're far less common than the
ones KDT mentioned. As per the Pareto Principle, we don't generally
need to worry about these.


I've seen more CPUs go bad since overclocking has become popular. You are
coming from your experience and perhaps a few others around you.

And so is John. The vast majority of users don't knowingly abuse
their products by running them outside of manufacturer's
specifications, but there is a group of 'enthusiasts' who choose to
take the risk of doing so, and they sometimes pay the consequences of
their actions. Doesn't matter if we're talking about PC overclockers
or "Rice Boy" engine chippers.

Anyone who thinks that they can safely exceed the engine's redline
without any risks or consequences whatever is a complete and utter
fool.


In fact I find that
memory has a pretty low failure rate when compared to a power supply.

I always find it amazing all of these "power supply", "power supply",
"power supply" mantras. In our office group last year, we had exactly
ZERO PC power supply failures. In 2006, same thing. Even going back
to the late 1980s when there were a couple of dozen of the supposedly
'infamous' Mac Plus PCs, they ran for years without any of them
burning up. I've seen more CRTs smoke themselves than power
supplies.



Okay...I'm sure you have numbers to back that claim up that a
"growing" number of users are putting their own computers together.
How is that possible if laptops are outselling desktops?

Oh ***, I said I wouldn't do it an I did it. I remember you now, I
had you in my killfile for so long I forgot that KDT is an idiot. The proof
is in the question you ask.

Yeah: proof that the 'John Slade' sockpuppet is full of ***.

If you had a clue you would never have asked
that question.

Because now Johnny's going to put you in his killfile and run away...
'neener, neener, neener!'

In the meantime, the question still goes unanswered: "WHERE'S YOUR
PROOF?"


The bottom line is that desktops are in market share decline, and that
at current rates (URL above), in four years, two thirds of new PC
sales will be notebooks...and by roughly ten years from now, the
market share of all PC desktops will be smaller than the Macintosh
market share currently is:


rates 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0.258 136 171 215 271 341 428 539 678 853 1073 1350 1698 2137
-0.013 143 141 139 137 136 134 132 130 129 127 125 124 122

49% 55% 61% 66% 72% 76% 80% 84% 87% 89% 91% 93% 95%
51% 45% 39% 34% 28% 24% 20% 16% 13% 11% 9% 7% 5%



-hh
.