*Insert trend here* is Dead!

This happens every so often. A journalist will come crawling out of the woodwork, spot a product going into a decreasing trend, and crow about how desktop computers are dead or something else equally as idiotic. I don't know if it's just an attempt to grab page hits or the writer genuinely not having a basic grasp of economics (or reality,) but it's quite depressing to see an article like that get any attention. Really, the writer of that article should be gently shushed and led into an isolated room where he cannot embarrass himself further. Desktops aren't dead. PC Gaming isn't dead. There's a difference between "no longer dominant" and "dead." Desktops have lost a large chunk of the market to laptops, but the thing is, desktops never actually "owned" that demographic. My mom, for example, has owned two desktops and two laptops. She basically uses a computer for email, to look up directions, news, or other information on the internet, and to store pictures from her camera and email them to people. That's it. She gets on it maybe 5-6 times a day for a few minutes at a time. A few years down the line, when the computer is old, slow, and the cheap hardware starts to fail, she buys a new one. Most computer users are like my mom. Most computer users have always been best served by a laptop. So these massive sales decreases don't represent the decline of the desktop, they represent the desktop losing a market that it got by default because there wasn't any competition. A desktop is superior to a laptop in almost every way (the one area it loses out on is convenience and portability.) A desktop will be faster, cooler (in the temperature sense,) cheaper, and longer lasting than a comparative laptop - especially if it is built from scratch. If you do more than two or three hours of work at a computer a day in one place, you are better served by a desktop. The difference between 5400 rpm and 7200 rpm won't bother my mom, but someone working for extended periods will. And that's not even bringing 10000 rpm drives into account. Second, dual monitors have been shown to produce a large increase in productivity. If you're plugging your laptop into dual monitors all the time, you're basically using a gimped desktop with none of the advantages of a laptop. Finally, little boosts like cheaper ram, faster processor, and a better videocard all might not make a huge difference, but it adds up to a significantly smoother experience when you're at your computer longer than a half hour. There's also the economics of it. Americans can afford to buy a replacement computer every few years. Most of the rest of the world can't. I can double my desktop's processor speed and add two more cores for $200 - and that's before I overclock it (which I can do because of my large heatsinks and well-ventilated case.) I can spend about $50 a year to keep my desktop cutting edge. I don't even need to buy peripherals more than once, because my monitor, mouse, keyboard, and speakers are going to last me at least 5 more years. So desktops aren't dead. They've just stopped serving a market that didn't really want them in the first place. Desktops are going to be around far longer than the self-important journalists who prophesize their demise, at any rate. I own a desktop and a netbook, because each plays to it's strengths. The netbook is portable, the desktop powerful, and neither is going to die out anytime soon.