Hi Charles, Yes, but your point isn't valid. The fact of the matter is that security issues, demands for newer technology, new features, etc drives the need for newer and presumably better operating systems. You can't always expect the existing hardware to meet the demands of tomorrows operating systems.
For example, let's go back to the Dos days. An IBM 286 with an 8 MHZ Processor and 1 MB of ran was perfectly fine for MS Dos. However, if you wanted to add a graphical user interface like Windows 3.1 you really needed an IBM 386 with a 50 MHZ processor and 4 MB of ram to run Windows 3.1 decently. Just as a machine built for Dos in the early 90's wasn't sutable for Windows 3.1 a machine built in 2001 isn't suitable for Windows 7 which was released 10 years later. Sitting hear bitching, moaning, and pitching a fit over it won't change the fact that the more advanced the software the more advanced the hardware has to be. What's so difficult to understand about that? I don't know if this is because I work in the ITT field, have a degree in computer science, but what seems crystal clear to me doesn't seem to make sense to you. What you are suggesting is an impossibility from a technology perspective and comparing your computer to your car, television set, etc is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges because both operate on different technical principles that dictate how fast or slow the technology is upgraded or needs to be replaced. For example, you could purchase a 57 Chevy and provided you kept the car in working order it would work more or less just as well today as it did when it was driven off the lot. However, just because you can keep it running that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. There are a number of technical changes between 1957 and 2011 that might make owning a new car a more practical solution. First, there is the issue of higher fuel costs. A 1957 Chevy was designed in an era when gas was very cheap and therefore waists gas needlessly. A car built in 2011 can easily get 40 to 50 miles a gallon, and many now split between electric and gas power allowing you to really save money on how much you spend on fuel. Second, is all the luxury features that have become a common feature in new cars like power seats, power windows, cd players, mp3 players, and several other features we now think of as common place. While not strictly necessary they are nice to have, and you won't get by sticking to your old 57 Chevy. Finally, the cost of maintaining your old car. The older the car the more difficult it will become to keep it running. Autopart manufacturers can not and will not continue producing old parts forever because the demand for them have dropped. As a result even if they keep a line going for classic cars they do so in limited supply, and this drives the cost of the parts way up. Resulting in you having to pay the manufacturer the cost of keeping that special line running when a new car would cost you less in the long term. All the same cars are designed to last the owner 10 to 20 years if they keep it in good condition. Computers have never and were never designed to be long term items. The average life span of a PC today is five years max, and that's generally the maximum length of technical support you can get from a computer manufacturer like Del, HP, Toshiba, etc. After that you are on your own. If your PC breaks down and you want to fix it your safest bet is to check Ebay or some reseller for older parts to fix it. As with the car analogy after the initial run of computer parts runs out it becomes more difficult and more expensive to keep that older computer running. Its actually cheaper to throw your old computer in the trash and buy a brand new one from Wal-Mart than it is to higher a computer tech to repair your old one. This isn't Microsoft's fault, but the fault of the entire computer industry as a whole. I fully realize why you don't like this, but it is how things are. The truth is we now live in a throw away society where its less expensive to buy new microwaves, computers, television sets, DVD players, etc than it is to have them fixed. If you can buy a brand new blue ray player for $120 and it costs you $99 just to have a repairman look at your broken DVD player it makes sense just to pay the extra $20 and get a new DVD player with blue ray technology. I agree the situation is both sad and disgusting, but bitching, moaning, and pitching a fit about it won't change the fact that this is how things are now days. Cheers! On 12/12/11, Charles Rivard <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is that the main purpose of a computer is not to run the operating > system, and we should not keep having to upgrade to keep up with modern > technology in the form of a new operating system. Do you have to keep > buying new cars because the engine requires it? There was a lot of flak > when we had to buy new television sets in the United States because analog > signals were being phased out and replaced with digital. Same idea. Sure, > it might be better, but does that justify not even being able to still > receive the lower quality signal if you chose to do so or because you > couldn't afford the newer digital sets? Same idea. > > --- > "Security is not the absence of danger. It is the presence of the Lord." --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
