Gartner Predicts a "Revival" of the Global PC Market in 2014

6

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

limitbreaker

This proves that the reason pc market have been stale is only Microsofts fault. They needed a powerful and robust desktop OS that would require an i7 4770 just for recommended cpu because of crazy innovative and power hungry features. Every generation of windows until windows xp have always needed a faster pc with more features to keep up with (from all the back to Windows 3.1 to 95,98 and xp).

With a 5 year old laptop or desktop running so well with current software makes it hard to justify a new machine. Ever since core 2 Quad, the only essential upgrade to the pc has been the video card, if you ran it with a gtx780ti you could easily run any game on max setting without a single Hickup. It is software that drives hardware sales and unfortunately things have been going backwards since windows 7, making things faster on low end machines. Windows 8 essentially being designed for tablets...

avatar

Granite

Damn that MS!!

They just HAD to go and make an OS that does everything Win7 ever did...but didn't require a hardware upgrade to use.

avatar

limitbreaker

Sarcasm aside, not needing hardware upgrades means a hardware market that only goes up 15% only in performance. All I'm saying is that Microsoft should have put in more features into the new Windows that legitimately needed more power. I want a windows that'll use up my resources in the pc, not a Nokia phone OS. Lol

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

I want an OS that is light on resources, but supports APIs that can match my PC's abilities.

I.E.) Do you have a QHD screen? COOL, the OS will scale to that and provide a means for all programs used with it to easily scale to that.

Do you have an Embedded and Discrete Graphics card (even in your desktop)? COOL, here's support for switching between the two and deciding on which programs run on which graphics processor, regardless of brand (Intel, AMD, NVidia).

Do you Dual Boot? Here's a nice interface for that (Win8 actually did this very well and I was impressed).

avatar

Granite

I'd rather have an OS that doesn't stomp a large footprint on my system, is able to utilize a wide range of hardware configurations and lets the resources be available to the software that I use.

avatar

LatiosXT

Microsoft tried that with Windows Vista and look what happened to that. Honestly, I'd rather have hardware requirements kept light. This has plenty of pros, such as:

* Faster adoption of the software, which means better support for it.
* A person gets to keep their old computer. It sounds a lot better for someone to pay $100 for a new version of Windows than it does $800 for the bare minimum such a PC may need to have to run something like the jump that was XP to Vista smoothly.
* People with newer computers get to enjoy a "better" experience, whatever that means.

Also you don't want system software that uses up all your resources. Go ahead, try it. Use Windows XP on its minimum requirements (which is a 233MHz processor and 64MB of RAM).