Laptops Outsell Desktops 414
wintermute1974 writes "According to a new report by Current Analysis, laptops have overtaken sales of desktops for the first time in computing, ever. Figures are for the U.S. market, but presumably this is part of a world-wide trend." From the article: "Notebook prices fell 17 percent during the past year while desktop prices dipped only 4 percent. Some of the features common in most notebooks are longer-lasting batteries, CD burners and wireless capability."
This is in units sold (Score:5, Informative)
since 2003 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/03/technology/03TB
This may lend credence to the (Score:1, Informative)
Re:5 More Years Until PDA's Outsell Laptops (Score:3, Informative)
Corporate Sales Impact (Score:4, Informative)
The standard loadout the last place I worked was a Dell 2.4 GhZ laptop with a gig of RAM and a CD burner. The only problem with the system was if you ran it at full speed with it in your lap, you'd end up cooking your weenie, even with the fans on full.
It seems like not many companies are deploying wireless, though, so you still end up with travelling employees roaming the halls like undead zombies, looking for ethernet and power ports to plug in to.
Re:Year of the laptop? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This may lend credence to the (Score:3, Informative)
The original Compaq was 34 lbs. (Score:2, Informative)
In Australia (Score:5, Informative)
As such there is a huge incentive to buy laptops rather than desktops.
Re:heat output (Score:2, Informative)
Re:popularity vs. durability (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the laptop buyers forgot... (Score:3, Informative)
I'd rather not be in the middle of saving a file when the power dies.
Re:They left out the killer feature (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This is in units sold (Score:5, Informative)
For instance ECS (awful boards) sold 1.26 million motherboards, 25,000 laptop boards. ASROCK/AsusTek 3.3 million boards, 200,000 notebooks. MSI 1.1 million boards. Gigabyte - 950,000 motherboards.
The problem with just running with those is that companies like MSI also make boards for Emachines-Gateway/HP/many others. ECS used to do extensive work for IBM in the 90's (which explains some of those awful machines from then) -- Some major player must be using them, I can't imagine home sales of ECS boards are that high (though they are favored by bargain basement whitebox builders). Even Asus boards are showing up in HP's these days. So it's hard to seperate out the markets.
If we could break these down by form factor it would be more enlightening. Most of the boards sold to OEMs are MATX. Most home builders aren't buying the MATX boards. I'm sure the motherboard companies have accurate numbers published somewhere, maybe in their financial statements of investment prospectus but I'm far too sleep deprived to go fishing.
Let's take that rant .. (Score:4, Informative)
Too slow? My AMD 3000+ is not too slow, neither have any of my 1GHz+ machines been.
Laptop disks are smaller yes, I got 80GB 5400rpm in this one. While it is nothing compared to the 500GB I have in my desktop, it is completely sufficient for 99% of the people out there. The average person does not even have something like 10GB apps, 20GB games, 20GB music, 20MB movies and 10GB to spare. With 512MB RAM most people won't need to swap and never really notice the difference. What most people do (chat, surf, music, movies, simple games) aren't IO bound. If you are a pack rat such as you and me, perhaps. The rest, no.
Laptops have graphics cards that are just fine for everything but FPS games. Many people are non-gamers, even more are non-FPS gamers. Chat, surf, play mp3 and avis is enough for many people. Today, almost everyone needs to be on the net. Even in my own family I'm outnumbered two to one by my parents who certainly would do fine.
Laptops are slightly more pricy, but including the cost of an LCD, not impressingly so. I did try to put together a cheap new desktop recently, making it a laptop would add maybe 50% to the cost, no more. For the flexibility of a laptop, that isn't much. It used to be several hundred percent.
If your laptop gets too hot, it is malfunctioning or is a desktop in drag. Typical laptops don't get that hot, because there's more than enough power anyway. It has three hours of battery life versus none, what's your point?
As for size and resolution, that is mainly decided by the laptop size as the screen can not get bigger than the machine. I've used a 12.1" 1024x768 and 15.4" 1280x800 screen, and it is whatever works for you. Seriously, people used to get work done in resolutions far less than that in the early days, it is mostly psychological. By the way, the 15.4" screen is only a inch narrower than my 19" CRT, and is excellent for watching 16:9 movies, better than a 17" CRT. Again, if you are a non-gamer.
Nobody pretends a laptop is everything a desktop could be. But for the average user, I have no problem recommending a good laptop. If you a) need lots of HDD space, b) need lots of screen real estate, c) need fps gaming, laptops aren't for you (or at least not excellent for you). If you're in the huge "other" segment, go for it.
Kjella
Re:useable laptops? - thank Apple (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.notesys.com/Copies/CNET%207Sep00%20IBM
Dell and IBM were duking it out for for honors of first Windows laptop with wireless a year after Apple had already offered it.
I'm not sure whether Apple make their own firewire controllers but they DID invent the technology:
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-271986.html?legacy=
Finally it is clear to people who have been around for a while that Apple created the template from which almost all laptops are cut today. Check out this article that names the Powerbook 100 as the top gadget of all time.
http://www.mobilemagazine.com/archives/2005/03/th
Admittedly blind fanboyism is not very informative but neither is denying credit where it is due.
Re:popularity vs. durability (Score:3, Informative)