Desktops are dead ?

[iSayuSay]

sorry but the car/bicyle comparison is just dumb

cheap car vs deluxe one if you want, but both will get you from point A to B

people are obsessed with comfort and having the fastest car i guess. in my job it's creativity that matters, at the end of the day the computer is just a tool. anyway. this is endless

Cheap vs deluxe car would imply to cheap desktop vs expensive one, not portable vs desktop. Bicycle is compact, versatile enough and more portable but with limited power such a laptop does. Car is big and heavy but with more grunt like a desktop. I don't think it's that hard to see the relation.

Both are vehicles and one is no better than the other when you make use of it for what it was intended for. But certainly I can't live with only a bicycle in a big city. I still need a car and bicycle is simply a supplementary for a few small roads where a car won't fit. In the end I have and need both but I use car more often.

Metaphors aside, you begin the topic and singlehandedly judge that all people shouldn't need desktop anymore since it's so useless, so I think you're the one who should end it.

 

[mcpix]

I have several iMacs at work and a MBP for my home/personal computer. I also have a 20" Apple Cinema Display at home for when I want to work on a larger display.

For me, I find it a pain to plug into the Cinema Display. You have to deal with the power cord, the keyboard, and the display cable. Plus, I find that I'm always setting other stuff on my desk, so when it comes time to plug in, I need to clear some space. I've probably used it about 2 times this year.

I've actually considered buying another iMac for home, so I can simply sit down and start using it when I want to.

 

[lozpop]

i just translated $ to £, my bad
macbook = 1200$
22" screen = 200$
total = 1400$

Come on, $200 displays suck. The iMac display is fantastic, like the Thunderbolt Display.

Then, you can't say that a $1200 MacBook Pro is the same as an iMac. A powerful MacBook Pro with dedicated graphic card costs $1800. That is powerful as an iMac, but you already passed the iMac 27" price by $100.

Desktop are not dead. Sure, mobile devices and laptops are the future, but desktops will be around for years.

 

[ctdonath]

not everyone absolutely need a screen so huge and so high quality
unless you're a professional

Some of us are professionals.

At the moment I'm staring at dual 19" 1280x1024 portrait-oriented screens; it's what I can do to approximate a 26" display. That's often not big enough. I'm chomping at the bit to get a 27" iMac (I'd get a 30" if they'd make it) which looks better, lacks the bezel seam down the middle (dual, remember), and refreshes vertically instead of horizontally (yes, I can perceive some annoying nuances of screens being sideways).

Why a desktop instead of a notebook + display? Others have beaten the price issue to death (just costs more, 'k?). When I want to use my computer, I want to just sit down and use it, all set up, on, and ready to work. With a notebook, I have to wonder where I misplaced it, dig it out, clear space to put it, plug in the power supply, plug in the video cable, plug in the USB devices, wait for it to mount multiple terabyte drives, deal with chronically maladjusted power settings, etc. It's that "it just works" concept.

Portability? iPad. It's with me everywhere, online all the time. Any use I need mobility for, it provides in a smaller lighter easier package than a notebook. If I must access the full computing power of the desktop machine, tap SplashTop and I'm connected via remote desktop.

Oh, I understand the lead question. I used to be in the "notebooks only" camp. Then I got the iPad, severed the portable needs from the unportable needs, and eagerly await dropping a 27" screen, wireless keyboard & pointer, and 10TB of storage on my desk - and not having to fiddle with it all every time I sit down.

 

[Mike Valmike]

hi

what's preventing you all to go with the macbook route ?

The task my iMac performs the most, day in and day out, is household media server to multiple AppleTVs for my wife and kids. The computer never moves and is never turned off. Therefore, portability has, literally, zero value to me, so I won't pay extra for it. Sell me an equivalent-powered rMBP+TB display for the same total price out the door as a 27" iMac and I'm on board. At current retail the rMBP+TB option costs about triple the iMac option, and that's pre-refresh!

----------

However, some of the people comparing prices here conveniently forget about is that, if you do need portability, the valid price comparison is:

Laptop + decent external screen
vs.
iMac + a decent laptop + (possibly) additional software licenses.

...which levels the playing field a bit!

I find that iMac + iPad provides excellent portability at optimal cost. For heavy projects the desktop is there, while for primarily communicative tasks I have a light, easy-to-transport tablet that can be restored from zero via the cloud in minutes if it falls in a storm drain or is taken by a miscreant.

 

[xgman]

not everyone absolutely need a screen so huge and so high quality
unless you're a professional

key word being "absolutely".

Lots of people like large screens. You don't "absolutely" need to watch tv on large screen either. You could watch on a 20"" set, but wouldn't you really rather watch on a 50" set? Let people make their own decisions on what is important to them for their own reasons without judging what is appropriate.

 

[robgendreau]

I think the OP is right, if you consider how most of us use a computer. I'm sure there are some that need lots of top of the line monitor space...and those iMac monitors are cost effective.

But it's also true that more and more pro users need the mobility of a laptop. I don't know many who can get by with just an iMac, even with iOS.

And there are other benefits of MBPs over iMacs:

You can use it with other monitors in your house or business, fer instance your HDTV.

It has built in UPS capability; no need to add that.

It uses less power.

In older models, it was actually easier for a user to make DIY repairs, although in recent models both are crippled in that regard.

You can hide them; iMacs are a great design, but they still are rather incompatible with some folk's interior design aesthetics.

They can be secured more easily. Maybe I'm paranoid, living here in Oakland, but I can lock up my MBP with all that sensitive info. Not so with an iMac. Yeah, I could get jacked in my car or at the coffee shop, so maybe a wash. But sure easier to grab when the tsunami hits.

What do you sacrifice? Not much. A bit of speed, perhaps, and it's more expensive to get quality monitor space.

Rob

 

[Roller]

it's not a matter of money, i can get a mac pro if i want, it's a matter of having a single machine vs having two

but it all comes to personal preferences. some people like having tons of gear, i'm the opposite : the less, the better.

with my macbook & imac i have two itunes library, two iphoto library, two logic pro installations ... also two machines to upgrade. i'd rather have a single thing. or two things with the same brain, but it's not possible.

Fair enough. I agree that it's more work to keep two computers up to date than one, but it's a lot easier than it used to be with the Internet, cloud storage, and Wi-Fi than it was years ago. For me, doing everything on a laptop would be too much of a compromise.

 

[Razorhog]

Fair enough. I agree that it's more work to keep two computers up to date than one, but it's a lot easier than it used to be with the Internet, cloud storage, and Wi-Fi than it was years ago. For me, doing everything on a laptop would be too much of a compromise.

Completely agree.

 

[Identity Fraud]

MacBook Pro + Thunderbolt display = £2400

iMac 27" = £1400

Simple.

If you dont need to travel with your computer often then of course, get the iMac. Some people need/want a work station at home for their notebook thus the thunderbolt display + MBP combo.

 

[iSayuSay]

If you dont need to travel with your computer often then of course, get the iMac. Some people need/want a work station at home for their notebook thus the thunderbolt display + MBP combo.

That's so obvious.

But you'll be surprised that many people bought a notebook as the only computer, only to find out a few months later their machine stay on desk like 99% of the time. A lot of my coworkers and friends do that.

Turn out they feel a 13" notebook is too clunky and burdensome (MBP or not) after some time, and it's a pain to plug and unplug a lot of cables from the main desk. There's MagSafe, USB externals, printer, scanner, Ethernet. Imagine you'll have to replug all of those again when you're home? how many times in a month? in a year?

So why not get a desktop instead? all cables plugged and hardly removed? I think people still need one fixed desktop and one notebook as a "pod".

If you want a limited docking, than MBP + TB Display would be the best solution people can come up with. But again, the post you quoted hit the spot. It costs $1000 more than comparable iMac, and people get less performance out of it.

Portability tax is still the highest tax in tech world.

 

[dolphin842]

Some of us are also restricted to a desk for ergonomic reasons. I haven't had a personal laptop since early 2005 and haven't encountered much in the way of issues. With some remote desktop software and a cheap laptop/iPad/computer lab, I can get a lot done when I'm away from my desk if need be.

 

[harcosparky]

once again : external display

Professionals who sit at a desk all day, using their computers to generate income do not want a notebook with cables all over the place and an external display.

No way in hell we would go for that setup around here.

Only two ways about it .....

iMac on the desk, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

Mac Pro under the desk, Display, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

In both of those working professional configurations the working professional desktop has maximum efficient use of desktop real estate.

 

[Fattytail]

Professionals who sit at a desk all day, using their computers to generate income do not want a notebook with cables all over the place and an external display.

No way in hell we would go for that setup around here.

Only two ways about it .....

iMac on the desk, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

Mac Pro under the desk, Display, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

In both of those working professional configurations the working professional desktop has maximum efficient use of desktop real estate.

Cables all over the place? One cable goes from the monitor to the MB. One single solitary cable.

 

[snow blind]

Cables all over the place? One cable goes from the monitor to the MB. One single solitary cable.

If you have only one cable connected to your laptop while using an external monitor... you don't even need an external monitor.

 

[thelookingglass]

If you have only one cable connected to your laptop while using an external monitor... you don't even need an external monitor.

Clearly youve never used Apple's Cinema Display.

 

[The Final Cut]

using an external monitor with a laptop feels pretty ghetto to me. plus you can't get a decent 27' ips monitor for less than 800 which is half the cost of the 27" iMac.

 

[ggpike]

Professionals who sit at a desk all day, using their computers to generate income do not want a notebook with cables all over the place and an external display.

No way in hell we would go for that setup around here.

Only two ways about it .....

iMac on the desk, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

Mac Pro under the desk, Display, KB and Trackpad/Graphics Tablet, plant of legroom under the desk.

In both of those working professional configurations the working professional desktop has maximum efficient use of desktop real estate.

Definitely depends on where you're working.

I did design and packaging work for a major company and the design department used all Mac Pros. So in that aspect you're absolutely right. You need something that maximizes work / desk space and is always hooked up to the servers where all of the working art files are kept.

When I left and started my own design firm I chose to go the route of a MBP and Dell U3011 display. I often go back and forth working between home and studio and need the portability. When meeting with clients I'll use my iPad. But, that's my particular work pattern and what works the best for me. I use a combination of Box and an NAS to access my files from anywhere.

My wife needs an iMac at work because she needs something that looks good sitting in her consultation space... but she needs a laptop to work from when she's at home and an iPad for offsite client meetings. (I will say that her use of the iMac and iPad is more for serving the image of her brand)

 

[bocomo]

the thunderbolt display is a ripoff

you can find a great 27" monitor for 300$, thus saving 700$

who needs 4 ram slots ? 8 gigs is more than enough

 

[Atisha]

"In the future" it sounds right. The size of components won't really equate to power. rMBP's speed is impressive, if you spend $3,500. Like others have said, at this moment in time, staring down at a 15" screen, typing on a limited keyboard with a track pad (ugh ugh ugh), and other factors are not appealing.

In 5 years when cheap laptops are super fast, sure. I have no problem having the hunk of metal on my desk with an external keyboard/mouse and monitor connected, then removing those things if for whatever reason I need to use it on the go. Just not for $3,500, not including additional storage and peripherals.

 

[Mike Valmike]

I have no problem having the hunk of metal on my desk with an external keyboard/mouse and monitor connected, then removing those things if for whatever reason I need to use it on the go. Just not for $3,500, not including additional storage and peripherals.

Precisely. I have a main Mac that is never moved and is never turned off. It is never disconnected from its hub of peripherals. It is wired to gigabit ethernet and actually uses more than wifi bandwidth for a number of functions. Why on earth would I pay MORE for a workflow that works any other way, that actually results in a reduction in utility from that baseline, when this is the only way my Mac needs to be used? And I know I'm not completely alone on this because this very website has an AppleTV message board full of people who were tired of their DVDs and blu-rays being used and abused by young kids, closeted the media, and are serving mp4 rips from a hard drive. Look, the rMBP is a beautiful tool. I am a fan. But I don't need one, and I'm not the only Mac user for whom this is the case.

 

[antidromic]

hi

what's preventing you all to go with the macbook route ?

The fact that I've owned Apple notebooks for 10 years now. The iBook G4 and now this 2009 MacBook. It's time for a computer which can actually handle some games, some video editing, and all that jazz. Also, the MBP is ludicrously expensive for what it is.

back in the days, desktop were faster than laptop, but these days they're fast enough to do CPU intensive tasks such as Audio / Video.

Desktops are still faster than laptops. Laptops, such as the MBP, the rMBP, and the MBA, are still vastly inferior when it comes to graphically taxing tasks, like games. Let me direct you to these benchmarks:

MBP 13" + MBA: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
MBP 15" + rMBP: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

...and compare to:

27" iMac (2011): http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html

27" iMac (rumoured 2012): http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html

Notebooks are still inferior. I doubt we'll see notebooks overtaking or equalling desktops any time soon.

i have an old iMac and a 2011 Macbook. i've started working on the macbook and the performance is excellent.

I'm unsure as to whether you mean the MacBook, the MBA, or the MBP. The MacBook was discontinued in 2011 - the most recent model was the 2010 model. I'll presume you mean that. The MacBook is - or was - a superb machine; there's no doubt about that - but only for the average consumer. As a guy who's ready to move into the big wide world now (I'm a student), I think it's time to get a computer that'll last me until uni and beyond, and match my requirements until then.

i'm thinking of buying a display and saying goodbye to the desktop, which is i think a dying format anyway.

Auugugghhhh. The desktop will not die until laptops succeed it in terms of performance. Whatever Apple say.

 

[thekev]

not everyone absolutely need a screen so huge and so high quality
unless you're a professional

That screen is not marketed for broadcast work. It's not marketed based on Fogra pre-certification or anything like that. It does not have a validation package of any kind to prepare it for medical use such as viewing X-rays. The only means of keeping it stable is by rewriting the profile used by the OS, which is still interpolated data as it's not like they can measure every color. This is just the high end of mass market displays. There's nothing more to it. People buy it because they want it. Some of them happen to use it for work, but you should not declare this a niche product based on that. Niche products would embrace one of the feature sets I mentioned above.

 

[iSayuSay]

It's a pity OP to have a wrong posts in a wrong time

But we may conclude:

• Notebook is expensive for what you get. It will be an underperforming machine compared to desktop with the same dollar. It's been going on like forever and everyone (should) knows this already.
• Making notebook as a primary machine between home and work can often be a painful process since you have to unplug and re-plug all the cable on your desks, every single day for a month? or a year?
• Docking a notebook into something like ATD always ridiculously expensive. It's still the same notebook and often times they just don't have enough grunt, getting worse when it has to drive extra pixels. You get $2000 equipment for half or third performance of $2000 full fledged desktop.
• So .. the total price of a notebook = 50% performance + 50% portability tax. But some people are paid to be a mobile worker nowadays, so having a notebook is a necessity, and the "tax" pays for itself.
• But many people still want their money put on 100% performance, like me. Oh, I have an MBA, and like I said, it's expensive for what I get. But I'm getting paid for emailing clients or my boss on airport or mere cafe. So, I need one.
• If I could, I wouldn't buy a laptop. Not as the only or primary machine for sure.

 

[G51989]

Laptops are the new desktops.

Tablets are the new laptops.

The sooner everyone accepts this is where Apple is taking us, the better for all concerned.

What about people who need actual performance? My current Laptop has a 18.4 inch screen, has 32gb of ram, Dual Nivida GTX 680M's, 2 SSD's, and a 1TB hard drive, show me a tablet that can come close to that.

And as far as the " gap being narrow ".

Current workstation has 256gb of ram ( upgraded finally, yay! ), Dual 8 Core Xeons, liquid cooled, running at 4gzh each, 4 Quadro GPU's, and a total of 12 hard drives, and one boot SSD drive.

So what laptop comes close to that?