Android is the New Windows

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

Edit: You also don't seem to get that I'm the one who isn't arguing for a GPU attachment. I don't see any reason not to just go with onboard everything. The attachments I'm talking about are things like a physical keyboard and a bigger screen -- you know, ergonomics?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

I wasn't talking about remote connect. I am talking about the mentality that tablets will ever replace desktops. Essentially, the Desktop doesn't even exist in this scenario. The tablet IS the desktop. No docking, just attachments to make it emulate a desktop.

They won't. The more attachments you add, the less convenient it becomes. A bad idea that makes everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Tablets were meant to be mobile and supplement a desktop. Not replace them.

We've been going around in circles forever here. Why are you not reading a single word I write? Why do you not get the concept of having a station at home that improves the ergonomics of your pocket sized device to being equivalent to a desktop, when its power is already close enough to it as to make no difference? It'll still have all the touch screen conveniences they already have for on the go, it's just an add on for when you're at home or at work and ready to do some serious work with it. Do you just like having multiple redundant and expensive devices or something? And have you ever even used a smart phone or a tablet?

Edit: For that matter, have you ever seen an iPod dock? You know, those things that act as a boombox that uses your iPod as the program source? Ever notice that you can just unplug the iPod and take it with you when you're done using the speakers? Now add a keyboard, mouse, and monitor to those speakers. There you go, that's the kind of dock I'm talking about.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Figure out cold fusion, miniturize it... then you might have a chance at making tablet/smartphones the "new" PC. Oh and while you're at it solve the wifi saturation problem thats coming soon.
Do that and I'll agree that wires and desktops will go away.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

I wasn't talking about remote connect. I am talking about the mentality that tablets will ever replace desktops. Essentially, the Desktop doesn't even exist in this scenario. The tablet IS the desktop. No docking, just attachments to make it emulate a desktop.

They won't. The more attachments you add, the less convenient it becomes. A bad idea that makes everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Tablets were meant to be mobile and supplement a desktop. Not replace them.

We've been going around in circles forever here. Why are you not reading a single word I write? Why do you not get the concept of having a station at home that improves the ergonomics of your pocket sized device to being equivalent to a desktop, when its power is already close enough to it as to make no difference? It'll still have all the touch screen conveniences they already have for on the go, it's just an add on for when you're at home or at work and ready to do some serious work with it. Do you just like having multiple redundant and expensive devices or something? And have you ever even used a smart phone or a tablet?

yes I have, and you can't do what you can on a desk top.

and a station at home? WE CALL THAT A DESKTOP, genius.

Sheesh, and you call me going in circles. Tablets already DOCK to desktops for work. They already remote connect.

To turn Desktops into some mythical "station" and say Desktops are useless is stupid. Which is my original argument. There is nothing redundant with having a desktop and a tablet. The tablet expands what the desktop is already productive at doing. Not the other way around.

If anything, its YOU not reading my posts. Not me.

Sure, it's a desktop. It's a desktop where the tower has been replaced by your phone. What do you not get about this?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

I wasn't talking about remote connect. I am talking about the mentality that tablets will ever replace desktops. Essentially, the Desktop doesn't even exist in this scenario. The tablet IS the desktop. No docking, just attachments to make it emulate a desktop.

They won't. The more attachments you add, the less convenient it becomes. A bad idea that makes everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Tablets were meant to be mobile and supplement a desktop. Not replace them.

We've been going around in circles forever here. Why are you not reading a single word I write? Why do you not get the concept of having a station at home that improves the ergonomics of your pocket sized device to being equivalent to a desktop, when its power is already close enough to it as to make no difference? It'll still have all the touch screen conveniences they already have for on the go, it's just an add on for when you're at home or at work and ready to do some serious work with it. Do you just like having multiple redundant and expensive devices or something? And have you ever even used a smart phone or a tablet?

yes I have, and you can't do what you can on a desk top.

and a station at home? WE CALL THAT A DESKTOP, genius.

Sheesh, and you call me going in circles. Tablets already DOCK to desktops for work. They already remote connect.

To turn Desktops into some mythical "station" and say Desktops are useless is stupid. Which is my original argument. There is nothing redundant with having a desktop and a tablet. The tablet expands what the desktop is already productive at doing. Not the other way around.

If anything, its YOU not reading my posts. Not me.

Sure, it's a desktop. It's a desktop where the tower has been replaced by your phone. What do you not get about this?

Right, because your graphics card, sound card, ram, hard drive, motherboard, PSU, and everything ELSE fits into one small tablet which is just a processor and currently never meant for actual heavy lifting?

There is a LIMIT to how small we can make the tech. We are getting very close to that point. Beyond that, any smaller would mean the transistors MELT. So we make BIGGER tech so the transistors have greater numbers.

Its the reason we are looking into organic computing and other methods.

I understand what you mean, its just an unrealistic idea.

And finally we're getting to the root of where we disagree. The way I see it, if and when we finally hit that limit (the date of which has been pushed back about 10 years every 10 years for the last 30) the most powerful systems will probably be so much more powerful than what the average person (including gamers) needs that a mobile device will probably cover it. What's more, as you noted, we're working on things like organic and quantam computing. Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity, lest you wind up looking like Thomas Malthus.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

I wasn't talking about remote connect. I am talking about the mentality that tablets will ever replace desktops. Essentially, the Desktop doesn't even exist in this scenario. The tablet IS the desktop. No docking, just attachments to make it emulate a desktop.

They won't. The more attachments you add, the less convenient it becomes. A bad idea that makes everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Tablets were meant to be mobile and supplement a desktop. Not replace them.

We've been going around in circles forever here. Why are you not reading a single word I write? Why do you not get the concept of having a station at home that improves the ergonomics of your pocket sized device to being equivalent to a desktop, when its power is already close enough to it as to make no difference? It'll still have all the touch screen conveniences they already have for on the go, it's just an add on for when you're at home or at work and ready to do some serious work with it. Do you just like having multiple redundant and expensive devices or something? And have you ever even used a smart phone or a tablet?

yes I have, and you can't do what you can on a desk top.

and a station at home? WE CALL THAT A DESKTOP, genius.

Sheesh, and you call me going in circles. Tablets already DOCK to desktops for work. They already remote connect.

To turn Desktops into some mythical "station" and say Desktops are useless is stupid. Which is my original argument. There is nothing redundant with having a desktop and a tablet. The tablet expands what the desktop is already productive at doing. Not the other way around.

If anything, its YOU not reading my posts. Not me.

Sure, it's a desktop. It's a desktop where the tower has been replaced by your phone. What do you not get about this?

Right, because your graphics card, sound card, ram, hard drive, motherboard, PSU, and everything ELSE fits into one small tablet which is just a processor and currently never meant for actual heavy lifting?

There is a LIMIT to how small we can make the tech. We are getting very close to that point. Beyond that, any smaller would mean the transistors MELT. So we make BIGGER tech so the transistors have greater numbers.

Its the reason we are looking into organic computing and other methods.

I understand what you mean, its just an unrealistic idea.

And finally we're getting to the root of where we disagree. The way I see it, if and when we finally hit that limit (the date of which has been pushed back about 10 years every 10 years for the last 30) the most powerful systems will probably be so much more powerful than what the average person (including gamers) needs that a mobile device will probably cover it. What's more, as you noted, we're working on things like organic and quantam computing. Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity, lest you wind up looking like Thomas Malthus.

Unless quantum computing and organic cant replace integrated circuits. In which case we are screwed.

If battery tech don't up the ante, phones are also screwed.

If companies decide not to do your idea.

The path to your dream isn't a straight road. There is a LOT of limitations and most likely will never happen at least in your life time.

Maybe. But then if you had told me as a kid that half the stuff we have today would exist within my lifetime, I'd have told you to lay off the Star Trek. I've seen /so much/ seemingly impossible stuff come into being in my lifetime. I don't see why something so obvious wouldn't.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Oh yes, apple. because we all know they do so much.

You know, releasing the same fucking phone over and over again.

And google won't touch hardware markets like that.

I am not an Apple fan, I would never buy any Apple products but I have to say each iteration of the iPhone has made improvements. Google also have hardware, they own Motorola and have hardware built for them by various manufacturers under the Nexus brand. Considering the business partnership they have with ASUS its no leap to imagine them building Android powered laptops, especially with laptop and tablet hybrids becoming hugely popular.

never anything noticeable.

Secondly, why would google try to change the entire hardware market like he said? A lot of money, for what? It needs a profit, companies are not the in the business of wasting tons of money for bad ideas.

Google actually has their own OS for netbooks, called Chrome OS. Rumor has it that Chrome OS and Android share a lot of the same stuff under the hood, and the two projects will eventually be merged. So once again, it's not anywhere near as far fetched as you think it is.

Exactly Google has all of the individual pieces, they have netbooks, tablets and smartphones. They have Android and you can buy some laptops with dual boot OS that run Android. All of the separate pieces are there, they just need to ask someone like ASUS to make them a tablet hybrid ultrabook that runs an enhanced version of Android.

R&D costs for the hardware are next to nothing, everything already exists. Google simply needs to dedicate some resources to OS development and bingo Google branded laptops. A desktop OS would probably soon follow.

Why would google force the entire hardware market to cater to bad ideas for attachments to tablets and phones?

What attachments? Things already connect wirelessly and the tablet and laptop hybrids are a fraction bulkier than a standard laptop, the extremely thin keyboard simply folds behind the screen. You have the full keyboard and touchpad of a laptop and the convenience and portability of a tablet, they are the best of both worlds for a slight increase in weight and thickness over a tablet. They don't lack for performance either, they run on a special low power core series processor. Downside is that they hit the wallet hard at the moment.

All Google need to do is make a good OS thats all, they don't need to try and change the hardware market because its changing itself almost month by month.

The entire argument started over how tablets can have attachments which turns it into the "new desktop."

A flawed idea on multiple fronts. It has to be in the main design, or it won't work. External parts like GPUs on a wireless connection would be nothing but headaches if it even works at any capacity. The OS never came into it.

Even then, the OS would be bogged down, since desktops are MS,mac, and Linux country. Well known, big market share holders.

Practically everyone falls into one of these three groups for their needs. Google has a habit of joining in too late, it will end up like Google Plus with almost no one using it.

The only way for a Google OS to work is for it to offer something the other 3 can't.

Actually, there's two things people are arguing for here: one is the completely modular system, which includes an external GPU. The other is a system where all the processing power is already on board, with the extra connections being to a mouse, keyboard, and monitor/TV. Even the external GPU idea only adds one more connection, which, despite your seeming inability to comprehend it, would be something you only connect to while you're at home and doing something that needs some serious graphical power. Otherwise, all of your processing power would be on board. Personally I think we just need to wait a little longer, and the commodity level stuff will be good enough for anything that doesn't require a supercomputer -- at which point the university/military research lab can darned well buy themselves a supercomputer.

The POINT of a tablet and phone is to be mobile.

If you are at home, why bother with a tablet instead of just going to the desktop?

If you are going to be immobile. Why not go with a method that is meant for it?

Its not that hard to understand. If it can't leave the house, its useless to attach to a mobile. If the model by itself has enough power, what use is the attachment anyway?

I've been trying to explain this to you for the last two or three days now. The point of a docking station is to allow your mobile device to replace your immobile device. When you're near a docking station, you've got a full workstation. When you're on the go, you've got all of your documents and processing power with you, but with a moderately reduced ability to be productive. This is /significantly/ better than the way it is now, where you can't take a desktop with you on the go. Oh, you can take a laptop, but just try cramming it into your pocket. You're /way/ underestimating the allure of convenience.

I wasn't talking about remote connect. I am talking about the mentality that tablets will ever replace desktops. Essentially, the Desktop doesn't even exist in this scenario. The tablet IS the desktop. No docking, just attachments to make it emulate a desktop.

They won't. The more attachments you add, the less convenient it becomes. A bad idea that makes everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Tablets were meant to be mobile and supplement a desktop. Not replace them.

We've been going around in circles forever here. Why are you not reading a single word I write? Why do you not get the concept of having a station at home that improves the ergonomics of your pocket sized device to being equivalent to a desktop, when its power is already close enough to it as to make no difference? It'll still have all the touch screen conveniences they already have for on the go, it's just an add on for when you're at home or at work and ready to do some serious work with it. Do you just like having multiple redundant and expensive devices or something? And have you ever even used a smart phone or a tablet?

yes I have, and you can't do what you can on a desk top.

and a station at home? WE CALL THAT A DESKTOP, genius.

Sheesh, and you call me going in circles. Tablets already DOCK to desktops for work. They already remote connect.

To turn Desktops into some mythical "station" and say Desktops are useless is stupid. Which is my original argument. There is nothing redundant with having a desktop and a tablet. The tablet expands what the desktop is already productive at doing. Not the other way around.

If anything, its YOU not reading my posts. Not me.

Sure, it's a desktop. It's a desktop where the tower has been replaced by your phone. What do you not get about this?

Right, because your graphics card, sound card, ram, hard drive, motherboard, PSU, and everything ELSE fits into one small tablet which is just a processor and currently never meant for actual heavy lifting?

There is a LIMIT to how small we can make the tech. We are getting very close to that point. Beyond that, any smaller would mean the transistors MELT. So we make BIGGER tech so the transistors have greater numbers.

Its the reason we are looking into organic computing and other methods.

I understand what you mean, its just an unrealistic idea.

And finally we're getting to the root of where we disagree. The way I see it, if and when we finally hit that limit (the date of which has been pushed back about 10 years every 10 years for the last 30) the most powerful systems will probably be so much more powerful than what the average person (including gamers) needs that a mobile device will probably cover it. What's more, as you noted, we're working on things like organic and quantam computing. Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity, lest you wind up looking like Thomas Malthus.

Unless quantum computing and organic cant replace integrated circuits. In which case we are screwed.

If battery tech don't up the ante, phones are also screwed.

If companies decide not to do your idea.

The path to your dream isn't a straight road. There is a LOT of limitations and most likely will never happen at least in your life time.

Maybe. But then if you had told me as a kid that half the stuff we have today would exist within my lifetime, I'd have told you to lay off the Star Trek. I've seen /so much/ seemingly impossible stuff come into being in my lifetime. I don't see why something so obvious wouldn't.

While the idea you propose is possible, it is also entirely likely that as that technology becomes existant, when you hit that point, you will still have desktop computers, which will have all the power that you need and more, and probably be even cheaper.
As it is, I can assemble a computer, with enough power to run any game out there, at high settings, as well as do some heavy lifting in software compiling and lots of other non-gaming tasks, for $400 that's all, only $400. Now think, that is already at the point where your average user doesn't need any more power, think about how easy it would be to integrate something EVEN MORE POWERFUL into a piece of furniture, like say a desk itself, or a table, or a little wall outlet, with full wireless access for all of your devices, while not needing to conform to the power constraints, or portability issues we find in mobile hardware, that make using it as a real heavy hitter in the workstation field difficult.

You see where even bothering to make a special docking station for your phone to let it be used as a workstation is pointless? Because by the time you get the technology to produce phones legitimately powerful, and portable enough, you won't need to...

 

[J Tyran]

There is a LIMIT to how small we can make the tech. We are getting very close to that point. Beyond that, any smaller would mean the transistors MELT. So we make BIGGER tech so the transistors have greater numbers.

Its the reason we are looking into organic computing and other methods.

I understand what you mean, its just an unrealistic idea.

Intel have confirmed they have a workable 5nm process, that will help reduce heat a lot. Beyond that scientists have finally created a viable industrial process for creating carbon nanotube CPUs. It is only experimental tech right now and the error rate is to high to make chips that can compete with current tech, however estimates claim that unless significant unknown obstacles crop up within 15 years they could place tens of thousands of times more transistors than current semi conductor tech.

Nanotubes will use less power and are naturally more resistant to heat.