Is the PC "Dying"?

Quote: Nareed

I still don't like the idea of being dependent on an internet connection in order to be able to work.

Acer commented that Chromebooks are particularly appealing to consumers looking for a low cost secondary device and families picking up cheap laptops for their children.

So most people share your concerns. I would feel uncomfortable with this as my only device.

Chromebooks weigh 1.1 kg and cost about $250. There are a lot of smartphones that cost that much. To me that is a very good device to carry with you or put in your briefcase. It beats staring at a tiny screen on a smartphone or spending way too much money on a tablet.

Quote: TheCesspit

Which flavours of Linux GUI's have you tried?

Not to speak for Nareed, but based on our conversations up to this point, I don't think she has tried any...

I agree with you when I assert that recent Linux distros have an easy-to-use graphical interface that any existing Windows user who is somewhat tech-savvy should be able to adapt to within a couple of days, if that long, for common desktop functions (web, email, spreadsheets and other office apps, etc.)

However, that is an opinion. A lot of people aren't savvy enough to make the transition without big headaches, as they depend on little details and everything being exactly where they remember it and exactly how they remember it. For example, xubuntu (my preferred user-friendly Linux distro) doesn't have a "Start Menu." what it does have is an "Applications Menu" that serves the same purpose: quick access to nearly everything installed on your machine. But some people would have a hard time adapting to even that little detail changing.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Not to speak for Nareed, but based on our conversations up to this point, I don't think she has tried any...

I tried one some years ago, back when XP was in full vogue. I don't recall when exactly, or what it was called. The reason I picked it was you could boot from the CD drive. Long story short, I found nothing familiar or usable. No START button, but also none of the icons on the desktop made much sense. I'd paid about $3 for it, so after thirty minutes or so I rebooted the PC and promptly forgot all about Linux.

Quote:

However, that is an opinion. A lot of people aren't savvy enough to make the transition without big headaches, as they depend on little details and everything being exactly where they remember it and exactly how they remember it.

"Where" is a really big deal. If you moved the Windows Start button to the right, I'd hate you for the rest of your life plus 25 years ;) Why? because for weeks I'd click on something else when trying to open a game, and be looking at "START" when I wanted to know the time.

Do you want to know my biggest complaint against Windows Vista? That when I press the Windows key and then "c," the idiot system tries to search something for "c" rather than highlight the icons on the Start Menu which begin with "c." I've had that computer for almost six years, and I still try to open the calculator that way, even though I know it won't work.

Now, tech-savvy can mean any number of things. People tend to assume competence similar to one's own in other people. Most often that is not the case. So whilst I can easily configure any Windows version up to 7 to suit myself in short order, more or less, I assume I'd be as hopelessly lost on any kind of Linux as I was on the last time I attempted to use a Mac (I do mean that was the last time ever, BTW). For instance, if "tech-savvy" means being abel to code at a very simple, basic level, than that's not me at all.

But there's no need for even that much complexity. Simple things like different terminology can render things useless. A few months ago I tried finding a simple, easy to use PHP editor. I reasoned since there are, and there have been, simple, easy to sue HTML editors since the late 90s, fidning one ought ot be easy. Ha!

Quote: Pacomartin

Chromebooks weigh 1.1 kg and cost about $250. There are a lot of smartphones that cost that much. To me that is a very good device to carry with you or put in your briefcase. It beats staring at a tiny screen on a smartphone or spending way too much money on a tablet.

Having thought a bit about it, I think a tablet wuold be a much better idea for "on the road" the way I work. For one thing I want to hold everything physically inside my own devices, not ehereally floating around in some utopian storage locker somwhere. For another, I'd carry a laptop, with a BF screen and a full keyboard for serious work.

About tablets, I want to see what happnes when screens begin to get bigger than ten inches. That's about the upper limit on practical size, IMO. Any bigger and they're too awkward to carry around and too heavy to hold with one hand (and won't that mirculous touch interface work wonderfully when you need two hands just to hold the tablet?)

Quote: AcesAndEights

Not to speak for Nareed, but based on our conversations up to this point, I don't think she has tried any...

I agree with you when I assert that recent Linux distros have an easy-to-use graphical interface that any existing Windows user who is somewhat tech-savvy should be able to adapt to within a couple of days, if that long, for common desktop functions (web, email, spreadsheets and other office apps, etc.)

I'm always about 2 steps away from ditching the windows box at home. But there's about 4 games I still play, and can't be bothered to load up a VM machine on a Linux Box to do so. Even though I know I could get that working easyily enough.

Quote:

However, that is an opinion. A lot of people aren't savvy enough to make the transition without big headaches, as they depend on little details and everything being exactly where they remember it and exactly how they remember it. For example, xubuntu (my preferred user-friendly Linux distro) doesn't have a "Start Menu." what it does have is an "Applications Menu" that serves the same purpose: quick access to nearly everything installed on your machine. But some people would have a hard time adapting to even that little detail changing.

Yep. For example, see the Windows 8 changes. It's odd, though, I've seen more hate on that than the addition of the start button in Win 97. That was a big change, along with many office XX changes. Possibly they were perceived as 'for the better' or there was less people affected in 97/98 so the retraining burden was less, and on those more tech savvy people.

Quote: Nareed

a really big deal. If you moved the Windows Start button to the right, I'd hate you for the rest of your life plus 25 years ;) Why? because for weeks I'd click on something else when trying to open a game, and be looking at "START" when I wanted to know the time.

The "Applications Menu" under Xubuntu is at the top-left of the screen, by default, as the default task bar is at the top of the screen. But it can be configured to be anywhere you want (just ilke in Windows!). I just changed it to be at the bottom and it took me all of 30 seconds, which planted the Applications Menu at the bottom-right just like you like it :)

Quote:

Now, tech-savvy can mean any number of things. People tend to assume competence similar to one's own in other people. Most often that is not the case. So whilst I can easily configure any Windows version up to 7 to suit myself in short order, more or less, I assume I'd be as hopelessly lost on any kind of Linux as I was on the last time I attempted to use a Mac (I do mean that was the last time ever, BTW). For instance, if "tech-savvy" means being abel to code at a very simple, basic level, than that's not me at all.

Absolutely, I understand you. You don't need to know how to code, at all. Based on my conversations with you, you are a windows "power user" and are tech-savvy enough to adapt to a modern, graphical Linux UI in a few days. My assessment could be wrong, but that's my guess.

Quote: TheCesspit

For example, see the Windows 8 changes. It's odd, though, I've seen more hate on that than the addition of the start button in Win 97.

1) The Win 8 changes are vile and unnecessary for a PC, especially for a desktop PC.
2) there was no Windows 97. It's Windows 95 that introduced the Start Button.

Quote:

That was a big change, along with many office XX changes.

The changes strating in Office 2007 are vile and unnecessary (can you see a pattern here? <w>)

Quote:

Possibly they were perceived as 'for the better' or there was less people affected in 97/98 so the retraining burden was less, and on those more tech savvy people.

When Win95 launched fewer people used PCs, especially at home. This was just before the Internet went commercial, and people learned about ISPs, modems, browsers, email, etc. There were even fewer PCs used at business, too.

At the time I used Win3.1 reluctantly, and only because it was the one viable way for browsing the web. I liked Win95 a lot better.

Quote: Nareed

At the time I used Win3.1 reluctantly, and only because it was the one viable way for browsing the web. I liked Win95 a lot better.

You used Windows 3.1 to browse the web? You were on the bleeding edge, that's for sure!

I didn't browse the web until Windows 98SE. Good times.

Quote: Nareed

1) The Win 8 changes are vile and unnecessary for a PC, especially for a desktop PC.
2) there was no Windows 97. It's Windows 95 that introduced the Start Button.

Indeed. My point still stands. It was a big change.

The Win 8 changes are not unnecessary for a desktop PC, for one that has to try and hold it's market. They are questionable on the UI as they are wholesale changes to the interaction people are familiar with. The change between the Metro look and Desktop Window system is jarring, and where I'd say MS really screwed up. Metro -by itself- would be completely fine. It wouldn't -sell- though as a Windows distribution.

Quote:

The changes strating in Office 2007 are vile and unnecessary (can you see a pattern here? <w>)

You can hold that opinion. I disgree with the vehemence you hold it in.

Win Office has changed immeasurably since 1993 (when I first used it, and then only barely). The ribbon is different. It is not vile and unnecessary. As ever it is a case of being unfamiliar with the change, and that being something you dislike. I get it. It's a questionable choice at times to change the UI wholesale. But at other times, it is completely necessary, to add the features your market is demanding, and to clean up UI failings you've found through research and support.

Fact is, those changes will piss some people off. Those some people include Nareed.

Quote:

When Win95 launched fewer people used PCs, especially at home. This was just before the Internet went commercial, and people learned about ISPs, modems, browsers, email, etc. There were even fewer PCs used at business, too.

At the time I used Win3.1 reluctantly, and only because it was the one viable way for browsing the web. I liked Win95 a lot better.

We had old line terminals and a few standalone Unix workstations. X-terminals for webrowsing, but mostly it was gopher, telnets, ftp sites and the very primitive lynx. Worked bloody well though.

Quote: AcesAndEights

The "Applications Menu" under Xubuntu is at the top-left of the screen, by default, as the default task bar is at the top of the screen.

If we lived in Roman times, this is where I'd begin to raise Legions ;)

Quote:

But it can be configured to be anywhere you want (just ilke in Windows!). I just changed it to be at the bottom and it took me all of 30 seconds, which planted the Applications Menu at the bottom-right just like you like it :)

Is there a download I can try out? will it require a partition or can it boot from the CD? (I don't know how to do either, but I guess it should be easy to find out).

Quote:

Absolutely, I understand you.

Why, you're very understanding.

Quote:

You don't need to know how to code, at all.

That sounds good, but I will retain some skepticism about it.

Quote:

Based on my conversations with you, you are a windows "power user" and are tech-savvy enough to adapt to a modern, graphical Linux UI in a few days. My assessment could be wrong, but that's my guess.

1) I thought "power user" had gone with the Clinton adminsitration. Evidently I was wrong.

2) Capable and willing are two different things. Do not understimate the power of anger and frustration. Or of habit. When you're used to doing things a certain way, it's infuriating and frustrating to be forced to do them a different way; especially when there's no good reason for it, when there's no tangible benefit, or even worse when there are drawbacks to doing so (I'm looking at you, Office2007-2013).

3) If I don't find a decent and reliable Windows emulator (I can't partition the disk and go back and forth between systems; it would drive me crazy), then it will all be for naught anyway.