Dell and Asus have announced new mini PCs intended for use with Windows 365. These systems will not power themselves, but will simply allow users to operate Windows running in the cloud.
I’m still petty enough to hope this effort is a miserable failure
I hope this is effort is a miserable failure … because if it catches on, it could spell the end of desktop PCs in general as a consumer product.
Desktops will always exist, because you need the local processing power (and the cooling to support it) for certain professional workloads. But if everyday computing and even gaming becomes mostly done on thin clients fully dependent on internet servers, then desktops will become more and more of a niche, professional product. Which means they’ll become more expensive and harder to get. Replacement parts will become more expensive and harder to get. A desktop PC will be an expensive industrial machine, hard to justify the upfront price of for an average consumer. (Especially when a cheap thin client with a “cheap” monthly subscription can do essentially all the same things.)
It may also slow the adoption of open-source software because these thin clients are likely to be locked down and not able to install any other software without putting up a fight, if it ends up being possible at all. And if most people get used to the paradigm of renting their computing power from the cloud, they’ll be resistant to change that and go back to locally run software on their local machine that they then have to buy because their old thin client hardware can barely run anything, even if you do manage to install other software on it. (Imagine how hard it will be to convince someone to install Linux instead of using Windows if the first step of installing Linux is that they have to replace all their hardware with much bigger and more expensive hardware…)
Desktops are just hardware. Pretty cases on your desk will just get traded in for slim sideways 19" racks on a stand. And then they’ll get pretty, too.
Sure. But more important than what they look like or whether or not they’re sideways are the other properties of that hardware:
Upgradeable and repairable with widely available replacement parts
General purpose and capable of running any software you put on them
What I’m worried about is the desktop being replaced by something that meets neither of those points, resulting in a far worse experience for any person who wants to customize, maintain, and fully control their own computer, especially if they’d like to do so without interference from a huge corporation.
(Especially when a cheap thin client with a “cheap” monthly subscription can do essentially all the same things.)
Right now, one year of Microsoft 365 costs a full hundred dollars… and there is still a strong desktop market.
If you’re right that the tech industry is willing to price consumers out of personal computers - and it looks like they are - I can only imagine what will happen to those subscription prices.
If you think about it: It is very wasteful for all of us to have local computation power at home. So many wasted resources as most people use their PCs only the fraction of the time. Same can be said for cars and many other appliances.
Maybe the solution are shared cloud resources, but obviously not owned by those big corporations, but owned by the people on a local, regional, national level?
And it isn’t wasteful to be forced to replace perfectly good hardware and filling landfills with it because fucking companies want to own your data, your money and your life? People like you are the reason these assholes feel empowered to push this crap.
Neither did I imply that people should be forced to throw away their hardware, nor did I say that no one should own anything or completely surrender to any corporate overlords (actually I said the opposite).
All I meant is that sharing resources sometimes makes sense. When I see people buy very expensive and powerful machines for browsing the internet and regular office work all I can think is “what a waste”, blind consumerism. I think we can do better. What “better” is, I’m not certain either.
now that you say this, it is also so wasteful for all of us to leave our homes empty while we go to work! we need to illegalize homeownership, and we need to require all landlords to host multiple families in their properties! It’s not only the empty space, the empty beds and toilet, but also the fridges that keep consuming power, even though nobody is actively using them!
Well yeah it is, but is most likely much harder to solve co-living like that in a way that’s acceptable for almost any people. Whereas what was suggested here is that people pool their resources and lend/rent to each other.
Nothing about forcing anything on anyone, and people who want to be able to have exactly the CPU they need at any given time would probably not be interested.
Network down, can’t use Computer. Government Shit, can’t use computer. Cloud Computing companies shit? Can’t use computer. I want to be able to use it whenever wherever without trusting the whole
Chain to hold.
If you think about it, it is very wasteful for you to have that chocolate bar in your food pantry. So many wasted calories as most bodies can only burn a fraction of them before converting the rest into fat. Same can be said for pasta and many other foods. We even spend a full third of our lives asleep, consuming even less calories! Incredibly inefficient!
Maybe the solution is aerosolized calories that can be sprayed via plane over vast regions of the country instead of food so that calories are owned by the people on a local, regional, or national level?
It’s quite interesting to see the reactions. I’m happy to call it “inefficient” instead? I’m not a native English speaker so maybe the choice of word indicated to some that I wanted to blame people, that was not my intention.
Maybe it’s the fact that many users here are very tech savvy and would never want to give away sovereignty of their devices, which I can fully relate to. But I believe this perspective totally skews what an average user needs in computational power for everyday tasks.
This “communal computing” solution is just an idea. Maybe it’s stupid and has many downsides I haven’t considered, but I think it’s quite apparent, that we’ll not be able to continue this way forever, especially if more and more people on this planet rightfully want access to all these amenities.
We feel very entitled to our technology, and I fully think it plays an important part in open society, having access to information etc.
But it’s simple ridiculous to believe that it’s some kind of basic human right for everyone to own one or many high end devices for stuff that could easily be done with a 5-10 year old device.
I hope this is effort is a miserable failure … because if it catches on, it could spell the end of desktop PCs in general as a consumer product.
Desktops will always exist, because you need the local processing power (and the cooling to support it) for certain professional workloads. But if everyday computing and even gaming becomes mostly done on thin clients fully dependent on internet servers, then desktops will become more and more of a niche, professional product. Which means they’ll become more expensive and harder to get. Replacement parts will become more expensive and harder to get. A desktop PC will be an expensive industrial machine, hard to justify the upfront price of for an average consumer. (Especially when a cheap thin client with a “cheap” monthly subscription can do essentially all the same things.)
It may also slow the adoption of open-source software because these thin clients are likely to be locked down and not able to install any other software without putting up a fight, if it ends up being possible at all. And if most people get used to the paradigm of renting their computing power from the cloud, they’ll be resistant to change that and go back to locally run software on their local machine that they then have to buy because their old thin client hardware can barely run anything, even if you do manage to install other software on it. (Imagine how hard it will be to convince someone to install Linux instead of using Windows if the first step of installing Linux is that they have to replace all their hardware with much bigger and more expensive hardware…)
Desktops are just hardware. Pretty cases on your desk will just get traded in for slim sideways 19" racks on a stand. And then they’ll get pretty, too.
Sure. But more important than what they look like or whether or not they’re sideways are the other properties of that hardware:
Upgradeable and repairable with widely available replacement parts
General purpose and capable of running any software you put on them
What I’m worried about is the desktop being replaced by something that meets neither of those points, resulting in a far worse experience for any person who wants to customize, maintain, and fully control their own computer, especially if they’d like to do so without interference from a huge corporation.
But…
No desktops means more server options that people use at home. It’s still motherboards, RAM, GPU, etc.
Server options tend to be significantly more expensive, with fewer places to buy parts.
Right now, one year of Microsoft 365 costs a full hundred dollars… and there is still a strong desktop market.
If you’re right that the tech industry is willing to price consumers out of personal computers - and it looks like they are - I can only imagine what will happen to those subscription prices.
If you think about it: It is very wasteful for all of us to have local computation power at home. So many wasted resources as most people use their PCs only the fraction of the time. Same can be said for cars and many other appliances.
Maybe the solution are shared cloud resources, but obviously not owned by those big corporations, but owned by the people on a local, regional, national level?
And it isn’t wasteful to be forced to replace perfectly good hardware and filling landfills with it because fucking companies want to own your data, your money and your life? People like you are the reason these assholes feel empowered to push this crap.
Relax my fellow human.
Neither did I imply that people should be forced to throw away their hardware, nor did I say that no one should own anything or completely surrender to any corporate overlords (actually I said the opposite).
All I meant is that sharing resources sometimes makes sense. When I see people buy very expensive and powerful machines for browsing the internet and regular office work all I can think is “what a waste”, blind consumerism. I think we can do better. What “better” is, I’m not certain either.
now that you say this, it is also so wasteful for all of us to leave our homes empty while we go to work! we need to illegalize homeownership, and we need to require all landlords to host multiple families in their properties! It’s not only the empty space, the empty beds and toilet, but also the fridges that keep consuming power, even though nobody is actively using them!
Well yeah it is, but is most likely much harder to solve co-living like that in a way that’s acceptable for almost any people. Whereas what was suggested here is that people pool their resources and lend/rent to each other.
Nothing about forcing anything on anyone, and people who want to be able to have exactly the CPU they need at any given time would probably not be interested.
Network down, can’t use Computer. Government Shit, can’t use computer. Cloud Computing companies shit? Can’t use computer. I want to be able to use it whenever wherever without trusting the whole Chain to hold.
If you think about it, it is very wasteful for you to have that chocolate bar in your food pantry. So many wasted calories as most bodies can only burn a fraction of them before converting the rest into fat. Same can be said for pasta and many other foods. We even spend a full third of our lives asleep, consuming even less calories! Incredibly inefficient!
Maybe the solution is aerosolized calories that can be sprayed via plane over vast regions of the country instead of food so that calories are owned by the people on a local, regional, or national level?
Jeez you really hit a nerve here, with your pretty sane concept about sharing resources communally.
I guess some people really don’t like the word wasteful or something.
It’s quite interesting to see the reactions. I’m happy to call it “inefficient” instead? I’m not a native English speaker so maybe the choice of word indicated to some that I wanted to blame people, that was not my intention.
Maybe it’s the fact that many users here are very tech savvy and would never want to give away sovereignty of their devices, which I can fully relate to. But I believe this perspective totally skews what an average user needs in computational power for everyday tasks.
This “communal computing” solution is just an idea. Maybe it’s stupid and has many downsides I haven’t considered, but I think it’s quite apparent, that we’ll not be able to continue this way forever, especially if more and more people on this planet rightfully want access to all these amenities.
We feel very entitled to our technology, and I fully think it plays an important part in open society, having access to information etc.
But it’s simple ridiculous to believe that it’s some kind of basic human right for everyone to own one or many high end devices for stuff that could easily be done with a 5-10 year old device.