planned obsolescence

[Swansen]

So, basically, it describes the computer hardware market. I mean, Linux makes old hardware usable forever really, and i don't think a dual core machine will ever really need to be upgraded, not for a LONG time anyways. I dunno, thats all i have really, but it just bothers me, and release cycles the most. Performance gains from generation to generation are generally so little its laughable. I mean, from a pentium 4 to now is a jump, but that was how many years ago? and thats my point, everything in between just seems irrelevant.

 

[donkey42]

i don't think a dual core machine will ever really need to be upgraded not for a LONG time anyways. I dunno, thats all i have really, but it just bothers me, and release cycles the most. Performance gains from generation to generation are generally so little its laughable. I mean, from a pentium 4 to now is a jump, but that was how many years ago? and thats my point, everything in between just seems irrelevant.

MS will make sure that somthing is needed for people to upgrade to

 

[Big B]

Uh, woah, let's not get on the 'bash Microsoft bus' so fast here.

The other side of this would be that some things are not possible and/or take longer with slower hardware. True, websurfing doesn't need a quad-core and 8GB of RAM, but if you want to play games, regardless of the platform, you're going to get better performance out of newer hardware than something older. Additionally, video editing, for example, likes CPU and RAM.

Would you like to pay $100 for a 6GB hard drive? My did when 6GB was enormous, and that was about ten years ago. We have SD cards that are larger for less. I mean, how much is an 8GB SD card these days?

How frequently do you upgrade? How frequently do other people upgrade? How often do Intel, AMD, Seagate, nVidia, have a new product that is marketable? Remember that these companies are for-profit businesses and want to get out products people will buy, refine a product for better performance, and stay ahead of its competition.
While it's true that not all hardware advances are significant jumps in performance, power consumption may as well as the introduction of a new technology here and there.
Over time, these become proven and over several major bumps, people who upgrade infrequently see a drastic increase in the performance, much like going from a Cobalt to a Corvette.

 

[Anti-Trend]

Well, Vista pushed a lot of people into upgrades they normally would not have wanted nor needed, at a time when Vista-adequate hardware wasn't cheap. Even now, it runs pretty crappy and bloated compared to other modern OSes, including other versions of Windows. At a time of netbooks, build an OS that requires multiple cores, gigs of RAM and a gamer-grade 3D accelerator just to get the basic experience... makes a lot of sense. :)

I'm certainly not opposed to having access to faster, cheaper hardware. But defending Microsoft's "bloatware for the sake of bloat" seems... well... silly, not to mention counter-productive. I dunno about you, but I'd rather my OS run lean and leave me more of my beefy hardware for things like, oh I dunno, software. :D

 

[RHochstenbach]

When new technology appears in software, you'll need faster hardware. Just try to get the latest version of Debian, SUSE or Ubuntu running on a mainframe from the 70's. No luck there.

Now Vista really has high requirements, mostly because it was released too soon (office computers didn't have the required specs at that time). But depending on the tasks that your computer needs to perform, you might need to upgrade often. When you just need to use the computer for office use, you can install Linux and don't have to upgrade for a long time. But if you're a hardcore gamer, you might need to upgrade your CPU, graphics card and RAM when something new is released.

Another example is 3D designing. I usually do 3D designing with AutoCAD. Each new version has some improvements like better 3D quality. More detail can be put in a model, but this does require your graphics card to be quite new. You won't make it with a Geforce 5400, regardless of the OS you're using.

You can't expect to have your PII box with 32MB of RAM work better than an i7 box with 8 GB of RAM when using a different OS...

 

[Anti-Trend]

Adding new and desirable features is not the same as adding bloat to sell faster CPUs. I think Vista's most notable new feature is the enhanced DRM. It's debatable as to whether or not MS designs their OSes to be intentionally bloated to help sell hardware for their OEM buddies, or if they just write really loose, sloppy code reasoning that hardware gets faster anyway. But... does it really matter? It sucks either way.

 

[RHochstenbach]

It's debatable as to whether or not MS designs their OSes to be intentionally bloated to help sell hardware for their OEM buddies

No, MS was dropping XP and forcing computer companies to sell Vista. To do that, their computers had to meet the requirements for Vista AND also shouldn't be more expensive to be able to sell their computers in the first place. So everyone from the chip manufacturer to the computer company (like Dell, HP, Medion) had to cut the prices. Earning less money to be able to survive...

 

[Anti-Trend]

No, MS was dropping XP and forcing computer companies to sell Vista. To do that, their computers had to meet the requirements for Vista AND also shouldn't be more expensive to be able to sell their computers in the first place. So everyone from the chip manufacturer to the computer company (like Dell, HP, Medion) had to cut the prices. Earning less money to be able to survive...

That's funny... looks like Intel's stocks took a steep climb during and for some time after the Vista release...

http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/qu...&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=1&optstyle=1013

 

[RHochstenbach]

That's funny... looks like Intel's stocks took a steep climb during and for some time after the Vista release...

INTC Stock Charts - Intel Corporation Stock Market Charts - Free Stock Charts

I think that this is caused by their Intel Core 2 Duo (E-series). These weren't expensive in that time, and where able to run Vista. Therefore a good candidate in less expensive computers. I'm almost certain that the stocks of AMD where dropping in that same time span :)

 

[Big B]

In the case of Vista, I'll certainly agree with you. I think things like driver issues that various companies had would indicate more along the lines of sloppy coding and a very rushed release. However, sloppy coding as shown by a game like Deus Ex: Invisible War, can make it unnecessarily necessary for higher requirements.

 

[Swansen]

I'm speaking from a higher viewpoint than just faulty OSs, it just seems like such a waste to me to release something is such large volumes for such little gains. For example, the jump from Geforce 7 series to 8 wasn't anything really special, at all, especially considering a 7600 performed better than a 8600.... Even to the 9 series, which was just the 8 series re-branded... why?? I mean, in todays market my ideals make more sense, because there is a mass amount of unused chips out there, manufactures have such an excess they are making key chains with extra chips. Like, Intels Duos, they were pretty much pointless, it wasn't like Intel was making a lot of money at that point if at all, why wouldn't they have just slashed prices of the pentiums and waited until the core 2 were ready, which wouldn't probably have been sooner. I dunno, i realize thats not a very "profitable" business model, and the only reason anything is ever made is because there is potential for profit, and nothing else. That cycle just seems so unsustainable to me.

 

[RHochstenbach]

The new product names of NVIDIA are indeed confusing and are made to get higher sales.

At the beginning of 2009, it was possible to upgrade the graphics of the Mac Pro. I could choose betwen the nvidia gt120 and the radeon hd4870. In the first place I would buy the gt120. But then a dude told me Hey that's just the new name of the 9500gt! So I would be paying for a downgrade (had an 8800gt before that).