›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Do I Need a Desktop?

TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
edited January 2012 in Technology
So my Windows drive died this morning. Great, now I need to replace it, reinstall Windows, reinstall all my favorite software...

Or do I? Everything important or that I cared about is backed up to the cloud. Pics are on Flickr. Music? It's on Google Music, and I can always use Spotify or last.fm. Web browsing? My 4G phone is faster than the majority of wi-fi, and I've got unlimited data. Typing? I typed this whole post on that phone, and I can get a Bluetooth keyboard for nothing.

Netflix through the Wii, Youtubes on my phone. Hell, I bet there's a way to output this display to something else.

Basically, I only need a desktop for Steam, and even then, I'm sure a 360 would fit my needs.

So why should I care about my desktop? Are we beginning to enter a truly post-tower era of computing? That is, is this becoming the norm? Cybermancers and netrunners with their decks, jacked in all the time.

I could see a time in the next few years when the smartphone will be the sole computing device, filling multiple roles.
«13

Comments

  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    If they would let me use a mouse and keyboard on my 360 I'd be done with my computer for all but bittorrent.
  • RymRym
    I need a desktop/PC/powerful laptop to:

    1. Play most of the good games I enjoy (either don't exist or suck on consoles)

    2. Edit video/create media in general

    3. Code (try coding on any device without a real OS)

    4. Watch videos. The 360 Youtube doesn't show all Youtube videos. (Serously, search for the same thing on the 360 and the PC, and you'll see a LOT of videos missing on the former)

    5. Consume a lot of other Internet content (video "apps" are often locked down in general and many content providers don't allow their stuff to work on "mobile" or "HTPC" software/hardware).

    6. Manipulate large datasets. (Try opening a large spreadsheet or messing around with any manner of real database on a smartphone).

    7. Upload/Download large amounts of data (FIOS is waaaaay faster than any 4G)

    8. Keep personal backups (you at least need a local NAS unless you want to trust others 100% with your irreplaceable data).


    If you create no media, work with no substantial data, don't care about missing arbitrary content, don't code, and don't need "real" fast Internet, then yes, ditch your real PC.
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    Like many other situations, it really depends on what you use it for. Personally, I would never get rid of my laptop since I use it for programming, which is a task that almost requires good screen space.

    But I definitely do see that 5 years from now, the majority of people will just have a phone or tablet that allows them to do everything they need (since the majority of people only use computers to consume media). The creative minority will still want them.
  • AprecheApreche
    You only need a desktop if you are doing real work or playing real games. There are a lot of people, especially in NYC, that are 100% laptop. These people are crazy. Laptops are trivially stolen, lost, and are generally more fragile. What then?

    Also the only laptops with decent video cards for real gaming are gigantic. So even if you have a docking station and multiple monitors, don't expect to play real games. 2D indie games only.

    Lastly, every remaining viable platform other than Windows and Linux is so locked down at this point to be non-viable for real work. OSX technically is still ok, but it's a secret to nobody what direction it is headed. Expect one or two animals from now for OSX to be much more like iOS, completely unusable for anything real.

    The thing is, I say that you only need it for real work or real games. But I also say that every human being should be doing real work, if not also playing real games, on computers. If you are not doing some sort of real work with a computer, then you are going to become more and more of a nobody. The somebodies of the future, and even the present, are the people who compute.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited January 2012
    I'm a huge storage whore and media/game addict, so I'll always have a fancy pants tower. That said, I currently live on a network composed of an ultraportable laptop, a Kindle, and a smartphone. Netrunner indeed. Can't wait until I can get a smartphone covering the entire spectrum of currently available wireless options and always be connected somehow. Shouldn't take much more than a year, I figure.

    Also, pretty much everything I'll end up doing for my career will likely require massive amounts of computing power, be it radiology or some sort of PhD work in bio. So there's that.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I don't think Pete is going to replace his work PC with a smartphone Scott.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2012
    Here is a list of all the things that sort of count as computers that I have and actually use still. For example I'm not counting a GBA that's stuffed in a box somewhere.

    desktop
    HTPC
    old laptop
    new laptop
    work laptop (belongs to work)
    Chromebook (free, guest PC)
    NAS
    XBox 360
    Wii
    Apple ][gs
    Mac Pro 1MB
    Kindle
    Pirate Box
    iPhone
    Nintendo DS Lite
    Two Arduinos
    Digital camera (has wifi SD card)
    Router
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Also the only laptops with decent video cards for real gaming are gigantic. So even if you have a docking station and multiple monitors, don't expect to play real games. 2D indie games only.
    Alienware M11X. Also, you're implying that 2D indie games are distinct from "real games." Counterpoints: Super Meat Boy, Binding of Isaac, Limbo, etc.

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2012
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2012
    Also the only laptops with decent video cards for real gaming are gigantic. So even if you have a docking station and multiple monitors, don't expect to play real games. 2D indie games only.
    Alienware M11X. Also, you're implying that 2D indie games are distinct from "real games." Counterpoints: Super Meat Boy, Binding of Isaac, Limbo, etc.

    Just looked at Alienware M11X. It may be small, but boy is it fat. I'm also willing to bet that the battery life is awful and it will set you on fire.

    While some games with lower system requirements still count as "real" games, unless your PC is powerful enough there will always be some games that you can not play. If you care about games for serious, you need a machine capable of playing every game available.

    Also, when it comes to gaming laptops, there is one major issue that nobody addresses. The keyboard is attached to the monitor. To get in a comfortable gaming position for an fps or an RTS or something, you need to have the monitor and keyboard not physically attached. Otherwise, you are in for some serious discomfort, even with the laptop on a desk. You can plug a keyboard into the laptop, but then it's a desktop.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Or you can just play an Xbox.
  • ApsupApsup
    While some games with lower system requirements still count as "real" games, unless your PC is powerful enough there will always be some games that you can not play. If you care about games for serious, you need a machine capable of playing every game available.
    Following that logic, if you care about games for serious, you also need every console ever, at least those that are not emulated on current computers. So pretty much everything on PS2 onward.

  • NeitoNeito
    While some games with lower system requirements still count as "real" games, unless your PC is powerful enough there will always be some games that you can not play. If you care about games for serious, you need a machine capable of playing every game available.
    Following that logic, if you care about games for serious, you also need every console ever, at least those that are not emulated on current computers. So pretty much everything on PS2 onward.

    Actually, PS2 emulation is getting there.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2012
    While some games with lower system requirements still count as "real" games, unless your PC is powerful enough there will always be some games that you can not play. If you care about games for serious, you need a machine capable of playing every game available.
    Following that logic, if you care about games for serious, you also need every console ever, at least those that are not emulated on current computers. So pretty much everything on PS2 onward.

    Depends what games you care about. I can't even name any games for PS2 or PS3 or XBox 1 that I need to play that I can't. No matter what kind of gamer you are, the PC has more games than all other platforms combined by multiple orders of magnitude even if you don't count piracy. A PC is a necessity for srs gaming.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • AriaAria
    Actually, there aren't that many new games that aren't equally, or close to equally good on consoles. And you can play most old games on a cheap laptop, or on a tablet.

    I don't like calling PC games the only real games though. Sure, there are a lot of inferior ports from PC games, where it would make sense to look down on consoles, but there are also many many "real" games that are only on consoles, or made for consoles, and then quickly ported to Windows without any real improvements.

    How is Dark Souls not a real game? ...I wanna play more Dark Souls....
  • NeitoNeito
    edited January 2012
    Depends what games you care about. I can't even name any games for PS2 ... that I need to play that I can't.
    Kingdom Hearts I and II (Aka the only ones worth playing, even a little bit)? Disgaea 1 and 2? Metal Gear Solid 3? Fatal Frame II and III? Ico and Shadow of the Colossas, two of the leading contenders for "Games as Art"?GITAROO MAN?

    Just because you didn't have one doesn't make it an important system. Plus, it seems like we've got "good enough" emulation on it now.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • AriaAria
    edited January 2012
    Where's Ico on that list?
    No matter what kind of gamer you are, the PC has more games than all other platforms combined by multiple orders of magnitude even if you don't count piracy. A PC is a necessity for srs gaming.
    I like JRPGs. I want my Dark Souls's, Zelda's, Tales of's, Final Fantasy's, my Vanilla Ware games, my Shin Megami Tensei's, how many of those can I get on PC without pirating? Or fighting games. There isn't Street Fighter, there isn't Guilty Gear, no KoF13, no Tekken.

    What about Nintendo or Team Ico games? There's no way I'd accept those not being "real" games, and they're primarily console games.

    Sure, there's a bunch of great games for Windows, and a bunch of those are bad on console, or are in genres where you can't find much comparable on consoles, but in many other genres, a bunch of the best games are just never released for Windows.
    Post edited by Aria on
  • AprecheApreche
    Depends what games you care about. I can't even name any games for PS2 ... that I need to play that I can't.
    Kingdom Hearts I and II (Aka the only ones worth playing, even a little bit)? Disgaea 1 and 2? Metal Gear Solid 3? Fatal Frame II and III? Ico and Shadow of the Colossas, two of the leading contenders for "Games as Art"?GITAROO MAN?

    Just because you didn't have one doesn't make it an important system. Plus, it seems like we've got "good enough" emulation on it now.
    I played Kingdom Hearts 1 partially. It's good, I'd like to play more, but it's not so amazing that it's worth the trouble. I'm not a fan of 3D Metal Gears. I tried to play Shadow of the Colossus and the controls were so awful it was intolerable. I wanted to play it so badly. Now that I've played it, I have lost all interest. How do people like that game so much?

    That's a pretty sad gaming platform when you can only list 10 games.
  • NeitoNeito
    No, I just gave up after the first ten. If you really want, I can keep going.
  • AriaAria
    I'm not a fan of 3D Metal Gears. I tried to play Shadow of the Colossus and the controls were so awful it was intolerable. I wanted to play it so badly. Now that I've played it, I have lost all interest. How do people like that game so much?
    That doesn't make them bad games though. I bought a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4. All the 3D Metal Gears have been among the best games I've played.

    What part of the Shadow of the Colossus controls did you have trouble with? Horse or climbing? Horse is supposed to be horse-like, rather than car-like, and I think they did it well. And it wasn't that hard to get used to. As for the climbing... well... eh, sure. I guess the people who like that game so much just didn't have any problem with them. I didn't.
  • AprecheApreche
    It was a combination of camera and climbing. I got to the first colossus. The camera wouldn't stay in a good spot with the colossus moving around. Trying to climb on him at the same time was too much. Should have learned something about climbing from Zelda or Prince of Persia.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    It was a combination of camera and climbing. I got to the first colossus. The camera wouldn't stay in a good spot with the colossus moving around. Trying to climb on him at the same time was too much. Should have learned something about climbing from Zelda or Prince of Persia.
    That's the point. They weren't trying to make the climbing user-friendly. They were trying to express the difficulties in climbing a millennia-old stone giant using the means available to them.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2012
    It was a combination of camera and climbing. I got to the first colossus. The camera wouldn't stay in a good spot with the colossus moving around. Trying to climb on him at the same time was too much. Should have learned something about climbing from Zelda or Prince of Persia.
    That's the point. They weren't trying to make the climbing user-friendly. They were trying to express the difficulties in climbing a millennia-old stone giant using the means available to them.
    Good job. It's such a pain in the ass I have no desire to do it. Just like I have no desire to play an fps with iron sights. If I wanted hardship I wouldn't be sitting on the couch playing games.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • AriaAria
    Climbing isn't supposed to be a challenge in those games. Using the climbing from either of those games would've been a terrible mistake. The camera not cooperating is a fault though (unless when the dude is trying to shake you off). I've had issues as well when close to a wall, but only minor things I could overlook. Shame you couldn't enjoy it.
  • RymRym
    Forget Scott's argument. I don't say that console games aren't real games. I say that there are a LOT more PC-only games that are worth playing than there are console-only or even console-available games.

    To be a serious, multi-genre, gamer, one needs a PC and a console or three to have access to everything worth playing. If you can only have one, the PC has the most must-play games of every platform.
  • AriaAria
    If you can only have one, the PC has the most must-play games of every platform.
    I agree with this. But I don't think it'll stay this way. I actually really doubt it'll stay this way. If only counting the last 3 years, without actually doing any researching and checking which games came out, I think a 360 and a PC are equally good choices, and a 360 cheaper, and more hassle-free.
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    It'll be interesting to see how it goes. On the one hand, PC is still the easiest platform to create and publish games on, since it is completely uncontrolled outside of content delivery systems like Steam. This allows for much more indie development, which is where most of the creativity comes from.

    On the other hand, the PC is also the easiest platform to get pirated copies on, so it is more lucrative from a financial standpoint to avoid PC and stay with consoles (I'm talking purely about potential revenue, actual revenue is hard to quantify when most publishers don't talk about it).
  • ChurbaChurba
    Forget Scott's argument.
    We try, but it's like a song. Not as in, a siren's song, more like that the stupider a song is, the more likely it is to get stuck in your head.

  • NeitoNeito
    Forget Scott's argument.
    We try, but it's like a song. Not as in, a siren's song, more like that the stupider a song is, the more likely it is to get stuck in your head.

    Like a Siren's song dragging you into a debate.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Forget Scott's argument.
    We try, but it's like a song. Not as in, a siren's song, more like that the stupider a song is, the more likely it is to get stuck in your head.
    Like a Siren's song dragging you into a debate.
    A debate made of ROCKS.
Sign In or Register to comment.