10 years useful life of a computer?

[mamamia88]

what are the chances of a motherboard built today will be able to support upgrades for 10 years?

[Wiebelhaus]

Zip , Zero , Zilch.

[mamamia88]

dang

[wmcbrine]

Five years seems more realistic.

[jacobs444]

may not support updates, but may and probably will still be completely usable. My pc is five years old and I have no troubles with it.

[mamamia88]

cool i was just curious too see if it would be possible.

[Wiebelhaus]

Conservative and average life expectancy is normally 3-5 years.

[Wiebelhaus]

Mind you that's from a technicians standpoint and not a salesman's.

[Exodist]

cool i was just curious too see if it would be possible.
Yea 10 is normally the max lifespan these days. Mind stuff is thinner, flimsy(er) and produces more heat. If you keep it clean (CPU and PSU mainly) and keep it on a battery backup. 10 years no problem.

[wmcbrine]

...although I'm currently using a nine-year-old video card.

[murderslastcrow]

I'm typing this from a 1996 computer.

[HappyFeet]

I'm typing this from a 1996 computer.

How much did the museum charge you for it?

[SunnyRabbiera]

This computer here is going to be 4 years old now, but i feel it will last me a long time.
The only thing I cant modify much is the processor, but other then that with a max of 4GB of RAM I can be running this thing for some time in the foreseeable future.
I use DDR2 RAM and so far its not going out of style, its still being made.
Not like the older RAM types like RDRAM

[Gizenshya]

Basically, 10 years is just too much.

There are other factors to consider as well. If you want a computer to last as long as possible... you'll have to pay out your (ear?...) for one. And then, you'll be paying out your ear still in 10 years, because the technology that "still supports" that old hardware will be expensive. With computers, you pay a high premium for both new/advanced hardware AND old/slow upgrade parts.

Take DDR1 for example. DDR2 is much faster and better in every way... but it is much cheaper than DDR1. DDR3 is better that DDR 2, but far more expensive. The middle road is the best price/performance you get.

So, you have a choice of paying out the nose for a computer now, plus eventual high upgrade parts OR paying a moderate amount more often, but still staying with the times. Every time I've worked the numbers, choice 2 prevails in both price and average performance.

Plus, you are getting more 'tried and true' parts, instead of the latest buggy parts.

That being said, I do hold to the belief that, in general, the mean useful lifespan of computers is on the rise. Computers are getting good enough now that they can do pretty much anything you can throw at them. Aside form gaming, unless software gets bloated all to heck in the coming years, I would venture to say that the mean lifespan for the average computer bought today will be about 5 years.

Take Microsoft, for example. Their latest Windows, 7, is less hardware intensive than Vista. I never really thought I'd see Microsoft make a "not significantly more bloated than last release" OS, much less one less bloated. It still comes with a bunch of crap you don't want and can't delete... but at least it seems like a step in the right direction.

... sorry for the ramble

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well why do you think next year I am gonna max out to 4GB of ram?
My compy will be like brand new almost, other then processor.

[Khakilang]

Actually its Window that determine the life of a computer. Just look at Window 98 which is pretty happy with Pentium 3 with only 256MB RAM that with Window XP you have to upgrade to Pentium 4 and at least 512MB RAM and now Vista and Window 7 has to run on Intel Core2 Duo and at least 2GB RAM. But I still run my Ubuntu 9.10 on my 7 year old notebook. Which is in pretty good condition. So let Window determine your computer life span. So the life span of a computer should be determine by Linux.

[-grubby]

Vista and Window 7 has to run on Intel Core2 Duo and at least 2GB RAM.

Not in my experiences.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Not in my experiences.

Bet it runs like a snail on some setups though

[Khakilang]

My brother uses a Window 7 RC and had to reformat after 6 month. No idea what slow down the computer. Virus, update, downloads etc. Could be anything.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

If you buy a quad core processor your probably going to be able to go longer before having to upgrade. Most apps don't even support three cores, so as more apps start supporting four you'll make better use of your processor and it'll be like upgrading to a slightly better processor every time an app adds multi core support.

[JBAlaska]

It might still work in 10 years, but your gonna want that fiber optic FSB, holographic memory, 36 core bio-silicon CPU and of course the neural interface..;-)

[starcannon]

what are the chances of a motherboard built today will be able to support upgrades for 10 years?

I have old P II machines that are still productive.
If by upgrades you mean running a modern kernel, sure; if you mean, latest in eye candy or cpu/ram intensive software, no. I would also assume that like my old gear, after 10 years, the hardware upgrades have been maximized.

Use a computer until it no longer performs a useful function; keep old computers out of the landfills and recyclers for as long as possible.

GL and HF

[blue_]

Vista and Window 7 has to run on Intel Core2 Duo and at least 2GB RAM
Vista in my experience needs that but windows 7 will run on a p4 512 ram. Its mainly software that decide the life of a pc. most mobo's, proc's, gpu's will run for a long time aslong as you do not have a over heating or dirt/dust issue.

The only failures that might happen if you have a clean issue is the hard drive. But say you want to view a site an your on a old win94 your not going to have the new IE or Firefox for that matter so some sites that are coded with new tech isnt going to run. Try to get .Net framework installed on older systems i know for a fact .net 3.5 can't be installed on win2k. Then you would be forced to upgrade your OS then you run into driver issues because newer OS's don't support old drivers unless you want to pay a arm and a leg.

[cascade9]

Actually, I disagree with everyone here. It IS possible to upgrade 10 year old computers. Its probably not worth it, and your have a lot of 'fun' finding some parts (read if your not 'in the know' you'll pay toom much for what you'll be geting) but it is possible.

A ten year old computer from today (dec 2009) would be using 168 pin SD ram, still getable-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147%201052107967&name=168-Pin%20SDRAM

Yes, per-MB its far more expensive than DDR1/DD2/DDR3, but its around. You will probably be limited by motherboard support as to max RAM. I would expect 512MB max ram to be typical of a 10 year old machine now.

It would also be using PCI expansion slots (and possibly AGP video, but for reasons I wont go into unless anyone cares I'd be careful of AGP upgrades on a PC that old), and you can still get PCI video cards, network cards, sound cards, etc, all still getable-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048%201069609642&name=PCI

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010290057%201102608534&name=PCI

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000027%201162810711&Description=netowork%20PCI&name=PCI


There are other factors to consider as well. If you want a computer to last as long as possible... you'll have to pay out your (ear?...) for one. And then, you'll be paying out your ear still in 10 years, because the technology that "still supports" that old hardware will be expensive. With computers, you pay a high premium for both new/advanced hardware AND old/slow upgrade parts.

Even now, if you 'pay through the nose' for something, once your past sweet spot you pay a ton more for not much more performance. EG- i7 920 vs i960. The i960 is almost twice as much, for, what, %10 moer preformance?


Take DDR1 for example. DDR2 is much faster and better in every way... but it is much cheaper than DDR1. DDR3 is better that DDR 2, but far more expensive. The middle road is the best price/performance you get.

Not true, DDR3 and DDR2 are pretty much the same cost now-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147%201052108080%201052307859&name=2GB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147%201052129233%201052307859&name=2GB


So, you have a choice of paying out the nose for a computer now, plus eventual high upgrade parts OR paying a moderate amount more often, but still staying with the times. Every time I've worked the numbers, choice 2 prevails in both price and average performance.

Plus, you are getting more 'tried and true' parts, instead of the latest buggy parts.

+1, agreed. Thats always been my policy as well.


That being said, I do hold to the belief that, in general, the mean useful lifespan of computers is on the rise. Computers are getting good enough now that they can do pretty much anything you can throw at them. Aside form gaming, unless software gets bloated all to heck in the coming years, I would venture to say that the mean lifespan for the average computer bought today will be about 5 years.

I sort-of disagree with this. Even a 10 year old PC is workable now, I've got a p3-866/384MB box that I play around with. If I was really broke, and couldnt afford a newer computer, it would suffice.

But todays computers tend to come with nice big hdds, etc. One of the issues with my old P3 is that it has a tiny hdd, its too small for me to keep my (oversized) music collection on it. With current hdds on mainstream computers being, normally, at least 300GB+. that is not an issue. Even allowing for OS size increases over the years, even a 300 would give me plently of room for my colelction.

Besides that, the requirement for viewing and editing photos, playing .mp3, .flac, .avis, DVDs is not going to change. Current PCs have more than enough guts for all of this. A computer from 2009 will have a much longer useable lifespan than a 1999 computer just because of this.


Take Microsoft, for example. Their latest Windows, 7, is less hardware intensive than Vista. I never really thought I'd see Microsoft make a "not significantly more bloated than last release" OS, much less one less bloated. It still comes with a bunch of crap you don't want and can't delete... but at least it seems like a step in the right direction.

... sorry for the ramble

Microsoft HAD to do that. Even now, a low-end PC can have trouble with vista, and XP will be around for a long time yet thanks to ow-powered notebooks, low end laptops, etc. Windows 7 really needed to be a lot better just to make sure that microsoft doesnt have to keep XP running for even longer. IMO anyway, again.

Sorry for breaking your post apart like that, but it was a good case in point ;).


I have old P II machines that are still productive.
If by upgrades you mean running a modern kernel, sure; if you mean, latest in eye candy or cpu/ram intensive software, no. I would also assume that like my old gear, after 10 years, the hardware upgrades have been maximized.

Use a computer until it no longer performs a useful function; keep old computers out of the landfills and recyclers for as long as possible.

GL and HF

+1. Even if you its no use to you anymore, there is probably someone around who can use it. Theres lot of people around who have never owned a PC, and even giving away a free box to some poor person is better than shoving the thing into landfill.

[kagashe]

In my country some people are still using the Desktops with Windows 98. Whenever I see such machine I show them how to boot from Puppy and they generally like it and stop using Windows 98.

kagashe

[BrokenKingpin]

I have a 6 year old laptop that still runs fine on the latest Ubuntu release. As time goes on, I will just use lighter Linux Distros.

About a year ago I upgraded it from 768MB ram to 1.6GB, and put in a faster HDD. This brought some life back to it.

[sudoer541]

my pc is almost 5 years old. my goal is to keep it until 2015.

[hessiess]

There's a Linux for anything;)

[judge jankum]

I have 4 machines that were bought in 98, and are all still running great!!
There seems to be a version of Ubuntu/Linux to fit just about any system, new or old..
It;s fantastic...

[Gizenshya]

cascade9, that was a very insightful reply.

Thanks for the correction about DDR3 vs DDR2 prices. It just goes to show how things change. It won't be much longer before DDR3 prices will undercut DDR2. The last time I checked was about a year ago, and DDR3 prices were still inflated. I should have checked current prices before commenting on them :)

Now that I think about it, I have an older PIII computer from '98. I upgraded the OS to xp long ago, and it is still running strong. HDD's don't last forever, and it is on its third one. The main downsides are the fact that it was made before mobo's could use hard drives over 127 GB, and its poor video performance. Any video better than poor quality over 640x480 in size bring it to its knees. It plays StarCraft and Total Annihilation well, but not much else. It is inefficient as well. It takes well over 20x longer to crunch numbers than my current computer, but it still uses about 60% as much electricity. It just isn't worth it to let it sit there crunching numbers, wasting electricity. For example, compressing a 2-hour video takes less than 10 mins on my new comp, but about 10 hours on that PIII. Unfortunately, these things make it impractical for a daily use computer.

If I finally get around to making a gasifier, then it might come back into regular use :p

[Frak]

Bet it runs like a snail on some setups though
AMD Sempron w/ 1GB RAM and an integrated ATi x2000 series

Runs fine. Does what I need it to do: Mail, Web, and the occasional Word document.

[Warpnow]

Upgradable from new parts probably drops off in under 5 years, but you can always buy used parts or unsold new parts.

However, upgrading an old system is seldom cost effective. For instance, people want a better graphics card and ram for their Pentium 4 PC. They buy an AGP card at three times the cost of a PCI-e one of the same power, and spend double the cost on DDR ram. You would usually get more for your money selling your Pentium 4 system for $100, and taking the $100 you were going to spend upgrading, and building a new low-end system using like athlon x2.