4 ms·

Windows used to exist in a competitive environment where they had to fight to remain relevant. For a long time now they have become complacent, no matter how ma

Windows used to exist in a competitive environment where they had to fight to remain relevant. For a long time now they have become complacent, no matter how many ads, product placements, and user abusive features they push, people will tolerate it. The situation has only just changed now that Apple and Valve are getting close to threatening the Windows monopoly.

makapuf 8mo ago
Frankly I don't know why we still have laptops. Honestly I think my mobile with a usbc base for screen and usb would perfectly work in a hardware pov. I don't know if Android would work, and besides of that a small fixed pc for whatever needs power.
- dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
  because phones are not general computing devices, and really shouldn't be. They are too important to modern society to be unlocked for their full potential. That said, I doubt the average person on a laptop even needs a general computing device, so your point does make sense. Though, is carrying around a screen and a keyboard and cable any better than carrying a laptop? I could see an argument of it being cheaper, but that would take years, possibly decades, of multiple competitors in the space for the market to make that true. Now, if we could have a decent folding keyboard and monitor that fit into the same case as your phone, that would be a game changer, but I don't think anyone is risking the investment to develop that.
  - philistine 8mo ago
    People want a full-size keyboard. Adding a couple of millimetres underneath that keyboard allows you to put a whole computer in there. We have laptops because it makes sense. Look at Apple's Macbook Neo. The tiny logic board on that computer is the least of Apple's worries. The most expensive components are the display and case. Why not charge 100 bucks more and not have to worry about this thing being a phone accessory?
    - dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
      Yeah, that's basically my point. The only way it would make sense to use your phone is if the keyboard and monitor can fold up so small that they can attach to the phone and still fit in your pocket. Otherwise, just using a laptop is going to be better every time.
      - philistine 8mo ago
        What you're asking, a laptop that can fold so small, requires materials science breakthroughs that we cannot bet on. A cheap slab of pure aluminium will be king by the time we're both dead. Mark my words.
        dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
        Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
foldr 8mo ago
Isn’t this backwards? Microsoft had way less competition on the desktop in the 90s than they do now.
- ptero 8mo ago
  I do not think so. The Windows - OS/2 war was a big fight that Microsoft won on merits. Windows 95 was revolutionary at the time, folks queued at the malls on the release day to get it, bugs and all. They fought the compiler wars with real engineering, giving Borland a run for the money. Different people have different opinions about Visual Studio. As a Linux user since 0.9 I did not like its architecture and focus on GUI at the expense of everything else, but I still saw it as a consistent framework done by excellent engineers. And so on.
- p_ing 8mo ago
  On the desktop, I don't believe Microsoft has had significant competition for quite some time, likely back to Windows 95. In the server space, NT fought really hard against the UNIX giants of the time.
  - foldr 8mo ago
    Windows’ share of the desktop market has dropped from about 95% in the late 90s to around 70% now.

makapuf 8mo ago

Frankly I don't know why we still have laptops. Honestly I think my mobile with a usbc base for screen and usb would perfectly work in a hardware pov. I don't know if Android would work, and besides of that a small fixed pc for whatever needs power.

dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
because phones are not general computing devices, and really shouldn't be. They are too important to modern society to be unlocked for their full potential. That said, I doubt the average person on a laptop even needs a general computing device, so your point does make sense. Though, is carrying around a screen and a keyboard and cable any better than carrying a laptop? I could see an argument of it being cheaper, but that would take years, possibly decades, of multiple competitors in the space for the market to make that true. Now, if we could have a decent folding keyboard and monitor that fit into the same case as your phone, that would be a game changer, but I don't think anyone is risking the investment to develop that.
- philistine 8mo ago
  People want a full-size keyboard. Adding a couple of millimetres underneath that keyboard allows you to put a whole computer in there. We have laptops because it makes sense. Look at Apple's Macbook Neo. The tiny logic board on that computer is the least of Apple's worries. The most expensive components are the display and case. Why not charge 100 bucks more and not have to worry about this thing being a phone accessory?
  - dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
    Yeah, that's basically my point. The only way it would make sense to use your phone is if the keyboard and monitor can fold up so small that they can attach to the phone and still fit in your pocket. Otherwise, just using a laptop is going to be better every time.
    - philistine 8mo ago
      What you're asking, a laptop that can fold so small, requires materials science breakthroughs that we cannot bet on. A cheap slab of pure aluminium will be king by the time we're both dead. Mark my words.
      - dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
        Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

foldr 8mo ago

Isn’t this backwards? Microsoft had way less competition on the desktop in the 90s than they do now.

ptero 8mo ago
I do not think so. The Windows - OS/2 war was a big fight that Microsoft won on merits. Windows 95 was revolutionary at the time, folks queued at the malls on the release day to get it, bugs and all. They fought the compiler wars with real engineering, giving Borland a run for the money. Different people have different opinions about Visual Studio. As a Linux user since 0.9 I did not like its architecture and focus on GUI at the expense of everything else, but I still saw it as a consistent framework done by excellent engineers. And so on.
p_ing 8mo ago
On the desktop, I don't believe Microsoft has had significant competition for quite some time, likely back to Windows 95. In the server space, NT fought really hard against the UNIX giants of the time.
- foldr 8mo ago
  Windows’ share of the desktop market has dropped from about 95% in the late 90s to around 70% now.