Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Upgrading hardware frequently


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 huny1602

huny1602

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:51 PM

Posted 19 June 2010 - 07:21 PM

Why is it that Microsoft's release of Vista and Windows 7 require people to upgrade almost every 6months? Who's reaping the benefits here? Anybody have thoughts about this?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:08:51 PM

Posted 19 June 2010 - 08:08 PM

I don't know about every 6 months, but with DX10 being Vista only, I can understand the viewpoint.

As far as "Who's reaping the benefits here?", everyone in the hardware industry and Microsoft. I can remember the same thing when XP was released as there was a flurry of new hardware sales as people realized their old parts that ran Win98 (or worse Win ME) fine would struggle with XP. Some of the sharper people running WIN2K didn't have the system shock that 9X users had. To be fair, eventhough the OEM system builders have jumped on the WIN7 bandwagon, WIN7 is usually less demanding on system resources than Vista. Lots of people upgraded because WIN7 was cool and new, eventhough their previous hardware would work fine with it. System OEMs love when Microsoft burns a $100 million on advertising as they can just ride the coat tails.

How often one upgrades depends on the initial investment as well. Build a fairly powerful system to begin with and you get a longer lifespan from it. Some only build a system with last gen parts to save money. A new system that is made from parts 2 years old, is 2 years closer to obsolete. I usually do a complete motherboard/CPU/memory upgrade every 2 1/2 years or so, videocards a bit more often depending on what games demand. You really have to look at the hardware and software roadmaps to find the right time to invest in a new system/upgrade. Doing the research and timing your hardware buys can save big bucks in the long run.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#3 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:09:51 PM

Posted 19 June 2010 - 09:19 PM

Windows is on a three-year plan, newer version of the OS are scheduled to be out at about a three year mark. Microsoft did this after the Vista debacle. Three years, unless you're running a barely capable system, is long enough to take advantage of tech changes, but not so long as to limit the install base for the new OS too drastically.

3939.png

 


#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,866 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:08:51 PM

Posted 20 June 2010 - 11:52 AM

<<Why is it that Microsoft's release of Vista and Windows 7 require people to upgrade almost every 6months?>>

Well...I would take issue with your contention.

XP has existed for ten years...which is a very long time for an O/S to endure. XP is able to run on some very old systems, systems that existed long before XP debuted.

The changes in technology since the inception of XP...have been minimally made requirements in Vista and Win 7, IMO. The problem for some users is that they want older systems...to be able to adapt to O/Ses that are somewhat different from Win 9x and XP.

Minimal requirements to run Vista (per MS): http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows...em-requirements.

Looking at those, I don't see anything that I think is unreasonable in 2007 or so, when Vista debuted. Considering the price and availability of hardware which existed then, as opposed to 2001...I don't see an unfair burden imposed on anyone, least of all anyone buying a new computer.

Minimal requirement to run Win 7: http://windows.microsoft.com/systemrequirements

I draw the same conclusions as I did for Vista.

Actually...the only users who play the "let's buy some new hardware" game...are primarily either gamers or enthusiasts and the hardware market is squarely aimed at them.

I don't expect computer parts I acquired 5 years ago (or more) to be able to run Win 7...but they do. I guess that I think 5 years is long enough for any user to feel like he/she has gotten their money's worth out of that hardware...and to take a look around at the changes which have taken place which result in faster, better systems.

I see the complaint that you made often enough...I just don't think that it's a valid complaint of any sort, with any real substance behind it...based on the changes in hardware which have taken place over the years.

I started with Win 95 and Pentium 166 processor way back when...today's hardware and O/Ses are significantly better, faster, and cost much less than such in that era. I think that this has been a significant trend and will probably continue to be so.

Through all those versions of Windows...I have never once thought that I needed new components to run the O/S efficiently. I have acquired newer components solely based on my whims for such, based on price and availability at what I consider "reasonable price" for value.

Computers are generally covered by warranty for 1 year...in the corporate world, they probably receive a 3-year life (for purposes of depreciation, writing them off as having no value).

I don't think that a user who has a system older than 5 years...has a valid complaint about "having to upgrade hardware" in order to run new versions of Windows which come forth...ever so slowly, IMO.

Just the view from someone who is just an average user with limited monetary resources...and who finds that some allegations/opinions that people may hold...need to be examined.

Louis

#5 rayj0054

rayj0054

  • Members
  • 126 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:texas
  • Local time:08:51 PM

Posted 20 June 2010 - 03:01 PM

i totally agree with louis on the thoughts of upgrading older hardware my first build was an old 486dx with 4 mb thats megabytes of ram which at the time was close to 100 dollars a megabyte. i built it to run the windows version 3.1.1 now i build one about every 3 yrs not beccause i have to to run an os but to satisfy my ego i presently have one xp machine one vista machine and one dual boot vista x64 windows 7 x64 but either computer will run windows 7 with no problem




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users