Of course there is a size limit based on the resolution capabilities of the GPU and graphics ram as well as the capabilities of the monitor/tv itself. If we are referring to videos or movies then there is also a limit based on at what resolution and aspect ratio they were recorded. In gaming one of the most important updates applied has been converting the old max standard of 1024x768 to not only greater resolution but also to widescreen capability. It is worthwhile to note that 1440p is still a LOT of money for very little difference. It really isn't advisable to just buy a 1440p capable monitor unless you've seen the difference and are willing to spring considerable bux for an equally capable GPU. This could conceivably change in time but that time is not yet here.

I've got a TV hooked up to my machine via HDMI cable, and it wasn't anymore difficult than a normal monitor. I did have to disable the DPI reporting via EDID though, as otherwise I'd get tiny fonts. Because I use the proprietary NVIDIA drivers I had to run nvidia-xconfig --no-use-edid-dpi to generate xorg.conf

Back in the day it was a problem trying to get audio through the HDMI, but it's much better these days.

^ ive got setup like that. cheap 55 inch *TCL 4k tv. i am happy with it.

*) "The Connected Life" chinese company.

Interesting how interpretations can differ. "PC" has certainly become a common abbreviation for "desktop PC". Just as "laptop" is the common term for a "laptop computer" (or "laptop PC").

It's worth noting that the term "personal computer" has come to refer to an x86 IBM "PC" compatible (though the origins of the term go back further).

In that sense a "laptop", assuming it is an x86 machine, is still a "PC".

On reading the thread title, I understood it as a reference to the omnipresent x86 desktop/laptop PC - e.g. the devices supplied by OEMs with Microsoft Windows preinstalled or from Apple Inc with macOS installed.

Laptops are certainly gaining marketshare from desktop PCs, but that in itself is not signalling the demise of the PC - it signifies the development and continuation of the platform - whether that in itself is a good or bad thing is another topic entirely. It's also another topic entirely as to whether that platform itself is in fact any good (or just the opportunistic winner in an historical VHS vs Betamax scenario).

Apologies, I seem to have missed this one. With regard to OS/2 - it became Windows NT (which is Windows 10) and that's about as relevant as it is today. It was MS who actually wrote most of the code in fact, during their collaboration with IBM - that's precisely why they were involved in the first place. Early OS/2 releases were command line only. It was mainframe focused IBM who held back OS/2 and Microsoft who eventually went in their own direction and moved it forward. There were better products around at the time, such as the technically superior AmigaOS, but they just never took off.

As with MSDOS/PCDOS, MS profited again from the open platform where IBM favoured one which was locked down to serve it's own business interests - the rest is history. While OS/2 may have been all the things you've described from a user point of view (obviously I'm assuming you were a user), it was a relative unknown to most and was overtaken by "cheap and nasty" Windows 3.x which MS chose to focus on at the time instead of NT OS/2 3.0, which was still in development. When the majority of "the masses" jumped onboard the WWW bandwagon in early years of the "internet revolution" it was with Windows 9x and not any supposedly superior project.

I remember the horrible AOL software and 3rd party modem diallers all too well. Those use cases outnumbered those running the likes of MAC OS, OS/2 and any other OS, even NT 4.0.

You've got a bigger TV than me then. Mine's a Panasonic LED 24 inch TV if I'm reading the box it came in correctly - so it really isn't much, if any bigger than a normal PC monitor really. But that's ok, as I don't really use it as a "TV" most of the time given the rubbish that passes for "TV" these days. So normally I'm using it as a monitor rather than actually watching TV on it.

While I'm not disagreeing with you cynwulf, in all fairness; The poll question does actually have the words "desktop PC" in it, and I did say the following in the OP:

You're right, I seem to have missed that.

//edit: However -
By the same logic would that not also kill off the laptop?

No mention of laptops causing a fall in "PC" sales, etc? All about tablets, smartphones and the cloud. Hence I assumed that they were being lumped within the "PC" category and just not mentioned specifically.

//edit 2: I think the thing to consider about a laptop, is though it's portable in the sense that you can put it in a bag and carry it from a to b, it's not a mobile device in the same sense as a smartphone or tablet computer. A laptop is generally not used on a lap, it's usually placed on a desk or table. A laptop usually tends to run the same OS as a desktop and is in my opinion subject to the same perceived threat from smartphone/tablet/cloud as per your OP.

Referring to the cloud killing off the pc, no time soon. There are still too many out there that don't trust the cloud, and I believe it will be that way for a long time to come.

Again, I don't disagree with your point. But I would say that while yes, a smartphone, tablet, or similar are far more "portable" than a laptop, a laptop is far more "portable" than a desktop machine - it's obviously far easier to lug a laptop around than trying to lug a desktop machine around - that was my main point. I did also say earlier on in this thread, when another member touched on this very point:

So again, I'm not really disagreeing with your point.

So in effect you're saying that laptop PCs fall loosely into the smartphone/tablet category?

My feeling is that they currently cross boundaries - in that you can have a laptop called a "chromebook" with some bastardised Linux which is as locked down as any smartphone and of course very much focused on "cloud storage".

But the majority of laptops are still just x86 computers, packaged for portability, running the same OS as their desktop counterparts and being used in a similar way.

My personal opinion is that locked down, mobile/portable devices of all types have certainly eroded the desktop PC marketshare. It's worth noting however that the PC market could well change over time, if Microsoft's plans are anything to go by. Windows 10 for example is clearly a slow but steady move to a more Android like model. Office 365 is an example of a loss of ownership of user data - in that MS admitted years ago that they could hand over your (their) data to authorities under the Patriot Act - even if you resided outside of the US - e.g. the EU.

Microsoft has also spent time and money in it's role within the UEFI consortium, locking down the x86 platform and passing it off as "security". Other vendors have been practising this kind of "lock in" for decades, Microsoft grew out of a more open platform and now it's becoming apparent that they seek to lock down that very platform. These locked down devices, remove choice and effectively push "cloud services" on end users by default.

And both google and Microsoft have devised means to run "Linux" on top of their own platforms, to ensure that those platform remain as the underlying OS.

I see it as more of a slow but sure demise of the "open platform" coupled with the removal of freedom of choice, "ownership" and the death of privacy, than simply the death of the desktop PC. We have not got "open hardware" as it stands and that can only get worse as time goes on.

Lysander666, I don't wish to drift too far on the tangent, but while you are historically correct about OS/2 up to Warp 3, apparently you had little if any experience with Warp 3, Warp 4, and WSeB. There are still mission critical systems that are using it to this day. I know all too well the history of MS's dealings with IBM as I was part of TeamOS2. MS programmers did write a lot of the early stuff and it was decent but their focus did not coincide with mission critical. Just one example is that MS insisted some apps be able to bypass the preemptive OpSys and communicate directly with hardware, notably audio and video. This kind of exception is what birthed BSOD. Date for date, OS/2 ran circles around Windows in stability, security, raw performance, features, bundled software, and service pack updates, and especially did so AFTER MS left.

IBM's major failing was marketing. It has been said that if IBM bought out a successful Sushi business they'd market it as "raw, dead fish".

i think my cat will kill my PC before cloud does. :P

Attached Thumbnails

 

Kind of, but in all honesty, I think you've somewhat hit the mark, if not hit the mark with what you're saying about things like the "chromebook". To put it another way: once upon a time, a phone was a phone, it made phone calls and that's it. Similarly, a desktop machine was just that, a desktop computer, you didn't sit there on Skype making "video calls", VoIP, streaming movies, etc. But you might have played games, and maybe even edited videos (if you could afford the hardware to do it with), etc. Remember those days? But now, and as you are pointing out; a mobile phone that could only make phone calls, and maybe at most later on send SMS's has become the "smartphone", that very much is a computer. In regards to the "laptop", I guess you could say it made the traditional desktop PC "portable" in a sense.

I agree that a laptop still runs x86 based OS's - so I think we are on the same page here.

Yes, the above I think is very much the danger we are really talking about here, and is the heart of the issue we are talking about. Particularly what I highlighted above, which I think is bang on the mark, and THE REAL issue here, and not to mention an excellent point.

So again, I really think we are in agreeance here cynwulf.

It looks like you have a very skilled cat, since it's standing on what looks like both your TV and monitor. You maybe right...

It seems that the description of a "personal computer" has more to do with the combination of design intention and usage rather than one versus the other. Some Rockchip Chromebooks, for example, can run libreboot and linux-libre. For many software packages, it's just a matter of recompiling source code for arm. This would be a personal computer with an alternative cpu architecture. A modern definition of a personal computer could be 'a machine capable of running arbitrary software and connecting arbitrary peripherals, where the arbitrariness is defined by its user - who is also its owner.' Form factor (desktop vs laptop) is then just a matter of preference.

I'm not buying the argument that anything descended from IBM / PC is indeed a personal computer. Now that there is UEFI (and the economical/political collusion that it brought), who is the owner? Ditto for ME / PSP which deliberately leaves back and side doors open for everyone else but the user, the owner is essentially the super-user controlling the BIOS firmware (which the user is outright forbidden from doing). So...debating the future of the personal computer might be pointless now, as it may in fact already be dead.

The out-of-the box Chromebook, the smartphone, and the tablet aren't PC's on account of what they are intended to do. Despite being called "open source," Android was designed from the ground up to avoid the GPL and for the sole purpose of running proprietary apps. And anything with a mobile baseband is a Frankenstein monster that cannot be controlled by anyone. All Samsung mobile devices have a back door from poor hardware separation, likely done deliberately - just a "mobile" equivalent of ME / PSP. But this is all design intention and it need not be that way. Should any of these devices come with physical kill switches for these offending pieces, then it becomes the user's choice whether to use them.

Not to add insult to injury, a couple of Samsung Wi-Fi-only tablets supported by Replicant may, on the other hand, actually be personal computers...

How did we ever get to the point where we need to "make computing personal again?"

For me I don't distrust The Cloud but the reason I will always have a Desktop PC is the ability to upgrade. Unfortunately manufacturers don't seem very interested in building with that in mind anymore with the exception of peripherals that can be swapped out in expansion slots. I'm often discouraged about how quickly CPU and RAM slots are abandoned and I really don't like throwing away gear that still works pretty well, but I've run out of chores that justify any more separate machines.

What a futile discussion, sigh.

Some random thoughts though:

• One can have a phone-only phone if one wants to. They sell them, right now. They're cheap, they work.
• I don't need things to become smaller and smaller. I'm a carry-a-bag-man anyhow, and often I cannot find something when it's too small (USB sticks)
• Anybody considered the absolute number of consumer computing devices between then when the term "PC" was coined and now? Sure there's many, many more nowadays. Who knows, the absolute number of desktop PCs might even be larger.
• A desktop PC is built once, then components are replaced little by little until only the case is the same as say 10 years ago. How do you calculate statistics for that.
• I remember my first PC, a cheapo no-name 386. I bought it used and it still cost me almost 1000DM - comparable to 1000$ nowadays. Surely prices have gone down. I'm not sure what that proves but it looks like a significant aspect when looking at the whole thing.
• I still don't see what the decline of desktop Computers has to do with the cloud. Somebody brought up storage, but nowadays it is no problem to have hundreds of GB on any-size phone, Chromebook etc. Manufacturers just like to skimp on that because a) they're in cahoots with the big G or Apple or whoever and b) it allows them to push the price.
• China?
• Privacy activism, EU's GDPR etc...?