Hardware System Requirements - Increasing and Increasing

[theSEMAR]

Personal computers on 10 years ago on average have a hardware specification of 1 GHz and 1 GB. Now, that specification is classified as outdated. Modern 64-bit operating systems require a minimum of 2 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM. Only 10 years old and our computers become less useful. We have to choose, maintain the hardware we bought 10 years ago with an outdated operating system, or set aside our money to buy new hardware with the latest operating system. whereas its function and usefulness is the same. Old hardware users have always been frightened by hardware and software manufacturers that their computers are vulnerable to cyber attacks and no more updates.

What is your opinion? stay loyal to old pc or will buy a new one? 

info: Ubuntu which freeware is now minimal should also be 2 GHz and 2 GB 

[Moe]

Like anything, I buy something when I need it.

I am currently using a 9 year old desktop because it still does everything I need it to do. When it stops working, or can no longer perform the required tasks, I will replace it.

Naturally, that won't work for everyone. Higher performance requirements will necessitate a shorter replacement cycle.

[RobertX]

Hardware requirements always increase, that's an infallible constant in computer technology; either that, or the requirement changes.

The oldest computer I use right now is more than 10 years old. The other ones are younger. A currently defunct computer of mine had me create a swap partition to be flexible for steep RAM requirements. If your computer is that old (it was refurbished and antiquated), just adjust the swap space accordingly. I would also max out on the memory intake of your system.

That's my two Canadian dollars.

EDIT: - Or my two Chinese reminbi.

[contrail]

Stay loyal to your old PC until you can no longer use it, buy a new one when the old one is no longer fit to serve your needs. I would recommend this so as to save as much money as possible.

[Mr.Masami]

info: Ubuntu which freeware is now minimal should also be 2 GHz and 2 GB 

There are other distributions with aim at old hardware, if you like ubuntu you can try lubuntu for example.

If you're not playing games or watching movies in 4k, old hardware will be as good as new.

[politux]

Ubuntu isn't "freeware" it is open source software. Freeware on Windows is free as in beer. Linux is free as in speech and free as in beer, because the user is free to view and modify the source code and distribute the software. "Freeware" is often proprietary and therefore the user is not free.

Also I agree linux will run way better on old hardware. I'm running Mint 18.3 on a 10 year old dell laptop with 4 gigs ram and an Intel 1.6 GHz x 2. It was running slowly with Mint 17 but after a fresh install it's much snappier. Try reinstalling the OS and stay the heck away from Windows.

Additionally, a lot of websites are way to heavy these days. Disable javascript and your browsing experience will be greatly improved.

TBH though, if your hardware is 10 years old you definitely got your money's worth out of it.

[RobertX]

Sometimes, "Free" software doesn't necessarily mean "free as in beer."

I remember a couple of open source projects folding up and charged for the code, some $50. I thought it was a lame thing to do at first, but the GPL does allow for such a thing to occur. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Back to the conversation at hand, there will come a time when your computer won't support any more future software, and that sucks. I guess it's like the song, "for everything turn turn turn, this is the season, turn turn turn..."

[joew771]

I'm not sure what the question is. Should I be 'loyal'. Wut?

If you want a new computer to play new games or use new software, and can afford it, then buy one. If you want to keep playing old games and use old software, or can't afford it, then don't buy one.

'Loyalty' to a computer system is totally idiotic. Buy a new one if you can.

[dueda]

Guess I'm finally seeing it clearly, after decades, so I'm sticking with this PC from 2012 for a while. Also can't afford a true gamming rig with triple big monitors.

Microsoft killed XP to keep selling new versions, so there're no XP drivers for my PC neither many new applications for XP itself, but Win7 will suffice for now.

Software and hardware need upgrades only to fix, improve or add new functionality.

There were many upgrades for the Apple II, a computer incapable of much more than chess and visicalc: For example, a 300 baud MoDem (2KB/minute); storage was a 120 KB diskette slow as my handwritting; a 256KB memory add-on only one app used; and many others. But I wanted it, needed it.

If you think Microsoft is bad, they learned everything from Apple.

Because the IBM PC was so good for the time, vendors had to plan ahead to create demand; it's also better to sell whole systems than just upgrades.
I bought a new PC nearly every year (286, 386, 486,...) but only saw change with my first multimedia kit, my first GPU and my first SSD. The rest is sweet talk.

Software is bloated, full of flaws and the developer's agenda.

Of course leaving DOS for Windows 95 (besides many weird design decisions) was a good thing, because it had a graphical interface (3.11 was quasi-useless).
Then adopting Windows XP was great (besides too many weird...); it had tons of corporate stuff I won't use, huge install footprint, but had the themes.

We only upgrade to run new apps and store more media, but we can't stop it.

We upgrade hardware to play GTA V instead of Space Invaders, keep a million files while we could be using just 100. It's natural evolution, greed, and the need for a new "automated toilet paper and smart phone holder" every three months.

In the end, it is mostly our fault; we could be happy with a Tiny-XP, Linux Colibri, or even CP/M.

[RobertX]

Does anyone here still own a 486?