What is your main computing device?


What is your main computing device?  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your main computing device?

    • Desktop
      56
    • Laptop
      14
    • Smartphone
      2
    • Tablet
      2
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

Lately, I've been hearing a lot about how more and more people are ditching traditional PCs for mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. Coupled with seemingly constant news stories about how mobile browser and OS market shares are rising and PC sales are dropping, I'm wondering what the majority of Neowin users are using as their main/most often used computing device.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1118872-what-is-your-main-computing-device/
Share on other sites

Hmm, I would say I use them all the same. I have a desktop at work, My phone when I'm mobile, My tablet for when i'm at peoples houses, at home or out somewhere I can sit down and my laptop which is really only used for business and never moves off my desk at home. I can't say which I use the most but the ones I used for the most tasks are a tie between my Android phone and Tablet.

My main computer is a deaktop computer. I used to use it for everything.

I bought an iPod Touch 4gen 1 year and an half ago. I found myself using the iPod for everyday use (check mails, check weather, cheak theater schedule, etc) more and more. The problem with the Touch is the screen is too small to browse the web and read books. So i'm thinking about getting a tablet. Probably a Nexus 7. I can definately see myself using my PC to work and play games only once i will own a real tablet. Tablets are just more convenient for every day use. They are small. Really portable (sorry but some high end laptops are not that much portable imo). And the touch screen is sort of working perfectly for tasks like getting mails and browsing the web. I really like having my touch close to my bed to check the weather and news when i'm waking up. Would like to have a tablet with a bigger screen than the touch. But i'm not willing to spend 400+ on a tablet that's why i'm looking at the Nexus 7.

Desktop <3

I'll be replacing mine as the main computing device for the first time by the end of the year, as I'm moving and want to keep it portable, so I'll be getting a laptop. But as soon as I settle for a longer period of time, it's a desktop again.

It's really hard for me to answer this question. I'd say I use my phone just about as much as anything else, but I don't think I'd say it's my main computing device. I guess I'd have to say my MacBook, but then, it's screen is broken and the battery went bad, so it's actually more like a desktop now... I can't decide which to pick :( Definitely not tablet though. I have an iPad but I only use it for playing around now and then. If I wanted to do something quick and mobile, I'd use my phone. If I wanted to do something that required a bigger screen than my phone, I'd use my MacBook (plugged into a 37" LCD).

I am pretty much in the same boat as AJ.

I use a Desktop at work, have a Desktop at home, but hardly even turn it on anymore now that we have a Macbook, but we use it plugged into the 24" monitor 98% of the time. I also have an iPad that I use for reading magazines, articles, play draw something, etc, but I use my phone 99% of the time.

I guess as far as primary, it would have to be my phone since I use it all the time, and I think most people are going to be the same now if we think about it.

My Desktop @ home, everything is a subset of the desktop, my phone is a copy of the data on my desktop (i.e. music and photos) even the cloud i would put into the subset as it is a copy of my desktop's data.

Although having everything around the desktop does make me feel old, that i can feel that i am of the previous generation, as i can see in the future that the cloud is the center and that all devices will be a subset, from tablet, mobile phone and desktop/laptop.

However i then switch on my Xbox and play a bit of skyrim and say roll on innovation and pushing the envelope! :D

A computer is the only "computing device" I know. People can spit whatever they want about their mobile gadgets, but they are just so: gadgets. With a remote kill-switch I WILL NEVER ACCEPT to be put up my ass by anyone. Capeesc?

A computer is the only "computing device" I know. People can spit whatever they want about their mobile gadgets, but they are just so: gadgets. With a remote kill-switch I WILL NEVER ACCEPT to be put up my ass by anyone. Capeesc?

Funny. My Surface seems to be a computer by definition. So are iPads, and other tablets. They all compute. They all do work. Care to try again?

At home, it's a combination of desktop/netbook/tablet/smartphone. I primarily use the desktop for normal surfing/gaming, netbook for RDP'ing into work, tablet/smartphone for couch surfing. At work, it's just work laptop/desktop.

My shiny new desktop of course! :) I have always used my desktop as my main system. I have a laptop and smartphone as well, but can't justify squeezing all of my tasks into a tiny screen and less powerful system (laptop).

I use my desktop mostly. I gave my laptop to my mum when I picked my current machine up. Occasionally I use my phone for some light web browsing but not for heavy-duty tasks.

Funny. My Surface seems to be a computer by definition. So are iPads, and other tablets. They all compute. They all do work. Care to try again?

I agree anything that has a processor/hard drive, etc is a computer. Its just which category as in Mobile or not honestly, so The King of GnG is wrong in his opinion for sure

when I am home I spend 90% of my awake time sitting in front of my desktop however, if I am in the living room I have my tablet with me (which i can use to remote connect to the desktop If i need to)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!