4 ms·

> (or a laptop more than, say, new or used for $750). To me, the hardware report shows technology is quite stagnant on display resolution and memory. 1366x768

by bhauer 9y ago

> (or a laptop more than, say, new or used for $750). To me, the hardware report shows technology is quite stagnant on display resolution and memory. 1366x768 is a resolution from 2002 or thereabouts. 4GB was common in desktop computers in 2005. ~15 years have passed and consumers in the $750 price range are still hamstrung with 1366x768 and 4GB of memory? I would expect better from a $750 phone, let alone a computer. I think we're actually talking about computers that are very old and have never been upgraded or new computers in the $200 to $400 range.

badestrand 9y ago
My 1-year-old MacBook Air runs 1440x900 with 8 GB and it cost >$1.000 IIRC. So neither "very old" nor $200-$400 range.
- vetinari 9y ago
  MacBooks Air, Macs Mini and Mac Pro during last few years were ancient as soon as manufactured. Apple is being criticized for not updating these model lines. So yes, the innards of your 2017 MBA are very old. It has Broadwell generation (circa 2014) CPU/GPU, and one optimized for power draw at that (i.e. a slower one).
majewsky 9y ago
> 1366x768 is a resolution from 2002 or thereabouts. In 2002, the most common resolutions were 4:3, not 16:9, not only because notebooks were not mainstream yet. > 4GB [RAM] was common in desktop computers in 2005. That's the time when notebooks became mainstream iirc. I purchased a gaming notebook in 2006, it had 1 GB RAM. I also bought a midrange notebook in 2009 which also came with 1 GB. (I later upgraded to 2 GB aftermarket.)
- bhauer 9y ago
  > In 2002, the most common resolutions were 4:3, not 16:9, not only because notebooks were not mainstream yet. Sure. I didn't really intend to get into fine-grained technical details, but yes, back then 4:3 was the predominant aspect ratio. In fact, some of the 17" LCD displays from the time were that awkward 5:4 resolution of 1280x1024. But putting specifics aside, the broader point is that computing technology—at least with respect to the most popular display resolution and amount of memory—is stagnant. In this thread there are people arguing for technology asceticism and making the point that 4GB and 1366x768 are good enough. And maybe they are for some people. I am surprised there are so many who are satisfied with this particular flavor of "good enough." (Though I would like to see how well that correlates with mobile device technology asceticism.) I want the hardware industry to do better, and I thought things had started improving a few years ago when 4K displays emerged and the shackles of "High Definition" (1920x1080) were cast aside. But this data shows adoption of 4K displays for computing is so low it's not even measured as such. That disappointed me, but it's unsurprising. What surprised me was realizing 1920x1080 isn't the top dog I thought it was—in fact, the situation is worse than I thought. And to my mind, all of this feeds into the subject at hand: an operating system vendor getting stuck. The embrace of "good enough" is suffocating.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  Notebooks were plenty mainstream in 2002 (they'd been accessible to the average middle-class household or small/medium business since the mid/late 90's). It's just 16:9 that wasn't mainstream at the time, at least for PCs (laptops included).
mixmastamyk 9y ago
Many of these statistics may be from overseas? I know in Brazil for instance, computers are levied with crushing taxes that mean even new computers in stores are already obsolete. Add in high rent seeking from middle men and low salaries and most people just make do with something ancient.
gruez 9y ago
>To me, the hardware report shows technology is quite stagnant on display resolution and memory. 1366x768 is a resolution from 2002 or thereabouts. 4GB was common in desktop computers in 2005 I think there's a huge disconnect between what's you think is "common" and what people actually have. Steam hardware survey from 2009[1] says only 10% of steam (gaming) users have ram greater or equal to 4GB. I'm going to estimate that in 2005, that figure is less than 5%. Saying 4GB is common in 2005 would be like saying 64GB today is "common". [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20090415225520/http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey https://web.archive.org/web/20090415225520/http://store.stea...
pjc50 9y ago
> new computers in the $200 to $400 range There's quite a lot of these, e.g. HP Stream; the Windows license is much cheaper for these systems because they have such low specs.
DanBC 9y ago
> 4GB was common in desktop computers in 2005. ~15 years have passed and consumers in the $750 price range are still hamstrung with 1366x768 and 4GB of memory? If anything it's worse now because the RAM is soldered in and they're using BGA ICs which makes it impossible for most people to upgrade.

by bhauer 9y ago

badestrand 9y ago

My 1-year-old MacBook Air runs 1440x900 with 8 GB and it cost >$1.000 IIRC. So neither "very old" nor $200-$400 range.

vetinari 9y ago
MacBooks Air, Macs Mini and Mac Pro during last few years were ancient as soon as manufactured. Apple is being criticized for not updating these model lines. So yes, the innards of your 2017 MBA are very old. It has Broadwell generation (circa 2014) CPU/GPU, and one optimized for power draw at that (i.e. a slower one).

majewsky 9y ago

> 1366x768 is a resolution from 2002 or thereabouts. In 2002, the most common resolutions were 4:3, not 16:9, not only because notebooks were not mainstream yet. > 4GB [RAM] was common in desktop computers in 2005. That's the time when notebooks became mainstream iirc. I purchased a gaming notebook in 2006, it had 1 GB RAM. I also bought a midrange notebook in 2009 which also came with 1 GB. (I later upgraded to 2 GB aftermarket.)

bhauer 9y ago
> In 2002, the most common resolutions were 4:3, not 16:9, not only because notebooks were not mainstream yet. Sure. I didn't really intend to get into fine-grained technical details, but yes, back then 4:3 was the predominant aspect ratio. In fact, some of the 17" LCD displays from the time were that awkward 5:4 resolution of 1280x1024. But putting specifics aside, the broader point is that computing technology—at least with respect to the most popular display resolution and amount of memory—is stagnant. In this thread there are people arguing for technology asceticism and making the point that 4GB and 1366x768 are good enough. And maybe they are for some people. I am surprised there are so many who are satisfied with this particular flavor of "good enough." (Though I would like to see how well that correlates with mobile device technology asceticism.) I want the hardware industry to do better, and I thought things had started improving a few years ago when 4K displays emerged and the shackles of "High Definition" (1920x1080) were cast aside. But this data shows adoption of 4K displays for computing is so low it's not even measured as such. That disappointed me, but it's unsurprising. What surprised me was realizing 1920x1080 isn't the top dog I thought it was—in fact, the situation is worse than I thought. And to my mind, all of this feeds into the subject at hand: an operating system vendor getting stuck. The embrace of "good enough" is suffocating.
yellowapple 9y ago
Notebooks were plenty mainstream in 2002 (they'd been accessible to the average middle-class household or small/medium business since the mid/late 90's). It's just 16:9 that wasn't mainstream at the time, at least for PCs (laptops included).

mixmastamyk 9y ago

Many of these statistics may be from overseas? I know in Brazil for instance, computers are levied with crushing taxes that mean even new computers in stores are already obsolete. Add in high rent seeking from middle men and low salaries and most people just make do with something ancient.

gruez 9y ago

>To me, the hardware report shows technology is quite stagnant on display resolution and memory. 1366x768 is a resolution from 2002 or thereabouts. 4GB was common in desktop computers in 2005 I think there's a huge disconnect between what's you think is "common" and what people actually have. Steam hardware survey from 2009[1] says only 10% of steam (gaming) users have ram greater or equal to 4GB. I'm going to estimate that in 2005, that figure is less than 5%. Saying 4GB is common in 2005 would be like saying 64GB today is "common". [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20090415225520/http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey https://web.archive.org/web/20090415225520/http://store.stea...

pjc50 9y ago

> new computers in the $200 to $400 range There's quite a lot of these, e.g. HP Stream; the Windows license is much cheaper for these systems because they have such low specs.

DanBC 9y ago

> 4GB was common in desktop computers in 2005. ~15 years have passed and consumers in the $750 price range are still hamstrung with 1366x768 and 4GB of memory? If anything it's worse now because the RAM is soldered in and they're using BGA ICs which makes it impossible for most people to upgrade.