I like Lenovo kit. a nice little i3 W7 machine for around £315 with optional W8 upgrade. Better than struggling with a W8 with no downgrade option.
Sold a lot in the last few weeks
Gartner slashed its PC sales forecast yesterday evening amid warnings that a glut of unwanted Windows 8 kit is sitting in warehouses gathering dust. The beancounter expects global shipments to reach a little over 305 million PCs this year, a decline of 10.6 per cent versus the previously projected drop of seven per cent. It …
I don't think the problem is just windows 8 (although that might be a small part of it) people just don't need to upgrade right now.
Lets face it, everybody stuck with xp through thick and thin, 2000, ME, Vista some other one I'm sure I forgot, none of them really made a dent on the XP market share until Windows 7. Windows 7 brought with it a lot of usability, security, gaming and various other benefits.
Before that shift thanks to OS it was a shift thanks to hardware. Back in ye olden days having the latest hardware meant something. a year between graphics cars was the difference between playing a game at 30fps, and cringing at a game running at 10fps. Nowadays hardware is jumping ahead by leaps and bounds still, but software hasn't kept up. I have a 260gtx in my PC, I can still play the vast majority of the newest games on it.
Basically what I'm getting at is this. There are two reasons people may want to upgrade. They need new hardware, or the new OS is a vast improvement over the old (and it'll only run on new hardware)
The amounot of grunt software uses these days doesn't push hardware enough to warrant an upgrade for the average user, and Windows 8 isn't that big a jump over windows 6.1 so there's no need to upgrade from that either.
Effectively the only people who are really upgrading their rigs at the moment are hardcore gamers, but in this case they aren't buying pre-packaged systems, they're just buying a new CPU or a new graphics card for their existing windows 7 system.
Unless software begins to use up more grunt (not simply by installing bloatware) there really is no need for the average user to upgrade their system anymore.
Beer because people are still buying it.
I think it's even worse than that. People are discovering that you can make old systems much slicker by changing a HDD for a SSD and SSDs are getting cheaper sharpish. It takes a little technical nous to do the changeover, sure, but why replace a perfectly good CPU, graphics card, motherboard etc when they perform perfectly well?
For a long time now poor disk performance has been hiding adequate performance in other parts of the system. While there was no real option for upgrading the disk, people upgraded all the other components. The difference was incremental rather than large, but it was the only way to improve performance. Now there is an option to upgrade one component and make the system feel much much faster overall and the result is that the bottom has fallen out of the market for all those other components.
This will balance out eventually - as disk becomes a smaller factor in system performance, all the other components become proportionally more significant and so worth upgrading again. But it might take a little while.
Correct, hardware-upgrades slow down everywhere. What we see is the trade from "end of leasing" and "finally to old to upgrade" with a limited switch to notebooks.
Actually Win8 is slightly smaller than Win7 (interesting for SSD users mostly) and slghtly fine tunes. So any Vista+ hardware will run it fine. Drivers for W7 will run as well (unless XP drivers revived/relabled - those will finally fail)
Used units returned from leasing are "good enough" for many privat jobs as well. A high end 2008/2009 system runs W7 just fine and can be had quite cheap. And when money is tight people turn "second hand" and "upgrade".
Add in the new CPUs announced and slowly comming out and the sales drop even more. A smart person planning a notebook / 2in1 / tablet pc will wait until Haswell and Baytrail are out (Or if you prefer AMD whatever they have). The first mobile Haswell systems already give a good idea of the increase in endurance for same weight and the increase in on board graphic performance. Even if current gen is good enough - why not wait until the last are sold off shortly before holliday season...
Plus it's the fact that your basic £250 PC/laptop/whateverbook is now powerful enough to do everything 99% of users want, so unless they break the thing or it wears out then there's no need to update it.
Hence why we now get told that the machine can (for example) edit HD video. Now I'm sure that's not something that most people would wish to do, given how long such things take to upload to YouTube etc. Most people are happy just to watch them, plus surf the net, do email and maybe a few games, most of which will quite happily go on a 2-3 year old machine, or on a new budget one.
Was looking earlier with a colleague at a new laptop he was going to replace a failed desktop machine with. £250 for something that will do everything needed.
Yes you can pay more (thank you Intel), but unless you're a road warrior lugging the thing about, who needs excessively thin and light when it'll just sit on a desk most of the time, and by being bigger and chunkier it can have all sorts of archaic but useful things on it like a DVD drive, ethernet and a nice handful of USB or similar.
I saw around 30 ex-lease core2 desktops go for around $19-$24AUD at auction the other night.
Its getting to the point where buying a complete second-hand system is cheaper than replacing a power supply or a new case.
My next upgrades will provide x5 graphics performance and x6 cpu performance from my current setup and will still be second-hand kit.
I notice a move to core-hobbled software licensing - perhaps an acknowledgement that generic servers offer enough grunt to service major enterprises in a single box - dual boxes are mostly for DR, not capacity. I suspect this is hurting AMD in the server market.
Time to dust off that i7-3960k and put together some enterprise water-cooling :)
"Lets face it, everybody stuck with xp through thick and thin, 2000, ME, Vista some other one I'm sure I forgot, none of them really made a dent on the XP market share until Windows 7"
Of course Windows 2000 and Windows ME didn't affect XP market share.... they both predate XP.
"Windows 7 brought with it a lot of usability, security, gaming and various other benefits."
So did Vista. It was a beast, but it could be slimmed down into a usable form... but *only* if you bought new hardware. You couldn't put it onto machines that you bought a year or two ago... so corporations were reluctant to upgrade. On the other hand, by the time Windows 7 came around, most of the machines were capable of running it, with minor upgrades such as adding RAM. Not having to replace every machine meant corporations could roll it out.
"Of course Windows 2000 and Windows ME didn't affect XP market share.... they both predate XP."
However, w2k was rather good and lasted me until 2008, and olny reald advantage I saw from XP was better USB support (which was missing completely from NT4).
On the other hand, ME was an abomination by any accounts, so XP would be a huge improvement on it!
But really, and already said, most folk don't have much spare cash and older PCs work just fine. De-crap an older XP machine, or better still stick Linux on it (as then you can usually do without the burden of AV bloatware), and it will do 99% of what the average user wants for little cost.
Vista was garbage. Sure it got mostly stable by SP2, but its memory sucking problems were never fixed. And in truth, Vista worked like a re-skinned XP. The finer features of Win7 makes its quite different from Vista on the surface.
But even ON NEW hardware, lower end computers at the $300~500 range were HORRIBLE! A typical low-end NEW vista computer with 1GB of RAM was a nightmare compared to an older or just previous model with WinXP that has 512mb. Back then, 4GB of RAM was about $400USD! Vista really needed 64bit with 8~12GB of RAM to function well and MANY PC makers sold such systems. That added $300~700 to the costs of the computer! I recently worked on a Win8 notebook with 1GB RAM. I disabled and removed junk and settings, spend $25 on 2GB of RAM (very expensive, but its for an old computer) and the customer loved how it runs better than it ever did out of the box.
Today, you'll find low-end Win7/Win8 systems with 1-2GB of RAM because of the memory problems.
I'm already going to Linux in my household. Windows7 is my last. WinOS PC sales will end up being 25% lower overall since the release of Win8. Face it, nobody loves Windows 8... and those that do say the same things:
- "Its not that bad"
- "Its fine once you add XXX-Start menu replacement, and I never go into Metro"
- "Spend 15 minutes learning it"
- "Once you learn all the keyboard shortcuts, its faster" - huh, but the whole point is that its a "touch" UI that should work great without a fracking keyboard.
If you are avoiding Metro, you are avoid HALF the feature seat of Windows 8. So why bother "upgrading" for a better copy/move window and a *gasp* fast boot up?
The other half of Win8 users just deal with it... unhappy... as its the only thing they have in stores and don't know they can order ThinkPads with Windows7Pro - which costs a bit more money.
Win8 is not hard to learn, its just a very stupid, crumblesome and ugly OS UI. I've gone to LinuxMint because of Windows8 and its easier to use as it works like a COMPUTER OS. And better, its free. No keys to enter, no activation, no spying.
That's being way too generous. I had dual boot XP 32-bit/Vista 64-bit, 8G RAM, Quadcore CPU, Raptor drive for the OS and separate drive for data. I worked mostly in XP because Vista was such a dog. Vista drive failed, bought a new one. Win 7 was out at the same time. Picked up Win 7 to reinstall the new OS part. Hardly ever use XP anymore. Mostly I boot to it to make sure it is patched. The difference is in the quality of the OS.
I bought new hardware. Good new hardware. Hardware good enough that I needed 64-bit to take advantage of it. Vista still sucked. Win 7 made it usable. Even though by that point I was running a 3 year old system.
...Gartner couldn't correctly predict the location of the eye in a hurricane so generally articles quoting their predictions is a waste of time. They're onto a safe bet here though. Windows 8 is a dog and the difficulties in buying a machine without Windows 8 or with Windows 8 and downgrade rights to Windows 7 is putting off a lot of people. I myself am waiting for MS to come to their senses before buying a new laptop. Either that or for manufs. to offer a choice of 7 or 8 with their machines.
If they did, I guess it is unfortunate that they were in the 5% (?) who actually seem to like it. (I find it the most unintuitive interface I have seen on any computer, ever, and I must have used a couple of dozen. The only interface I can think of that is worse, is some horrid harddrive and DVD recorder I encountered.)
However I suspect even if Win 8 were good, the market would still be quite poor, due to the lack of need of replacement PCs as noted by others.
Windows 8 is just like kicking someone when they are down.
Alas, not until UEFI has a stake driven through its heart. But right now I use a mixture of old hardware with my desktop motherboard over 11 yr old, newer cpu, 6200 nvidia, ssd, etc. plus a few new and second hand acer aspire ones scattered across my stamping grounds - total cost of all machines over a decade well under £1000 - well happy
all running openSUSE 12.3 upped to KDE 4.10.4
UEFI, appart from bad implementations by the hardware guys, is not a problem. Actually a replacement for the clunky old BIOS is nice.
What might keep the Penguin frozen to the ground is Secure Boot. That may or may not (Susie IIRC can life with it) a problem for the 1.x percent crowd
Had access to Win 8 a long time ago. Tried a few times but never found it anything but an irritation.
This past week I purchased 3 cheapie HP notebooks and all had Windows 8 pre-installed, along with a vast selection of crapware.
After about 12 hours wrestling with Windows 8, I was tearing my hair out. It is just beyond awful. Worst Windows transition ever and that is saying something considering Vista.
MS are not letting up, it seems. The V8.1 stopgap does not look promising.
Unless Windows 9 comes quickly and vastly improves on Win 8, I will probably be shifting a lot of stuff to Linux for a back end and browsers for a front end.
Microsoft is soon going to discover how much more difficult it is to get an old customer back than it is to keep them.
Return the HP computers... you should have done research.
Lenovo sells ThinkPad notebooks with Windows7Pro by default - they are $450~1800USD, takes about a week to get them in. And since they are business computers, they do NOT come pre-loaded with crap. hell, even their consumer IdeaPad lines doesn't come preloaded with 1/4 the garbage as HP.
I find it hard to believe that a man who orders 3 notebooks and is considering moving to Linux cant understand an operating system in 12 hours, that is very similar to the previous operating systems bar the addition of a reworked start menu.
Oh no its full screen how can you possibly understand it?!?!?!?
As much as someone who is trying to switch to Linux after a horrible Win8 experience does baffle the mind as I'd avoid buying any Win8-loaded gear, I can't blame him on not learning it.
I can definitely learn to eat a turd, but that doesn't mean I want to eat turds. Same applies to Win8.
Lenovo has made it easy to get a Windows 7 system? Ya think there is any correlation between ease of buying Win 7 and sales revenue? Had a pricey but like-a-jewel Thinkpad T430 delivered the other day. Win 7 was pre-installed, and there were Windows 8 DVDs included in the carton. These went on the shelf.
Dell is now getting the Windows 7 message, too. A Dell catalog came in the mail the other day, one for businesses like mine. Yep, Win 7 systems there, too!
Ballmer, ya screwed up, big time. It happened on your watch... Ben Myers
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019