That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people
I don't see anything wrong with using an older computer. Sure, newer software often expects newer hardware and things might go slower than usual, but I don't think that warrants a full computer upgrade every year (and if you ask me, software developers are to blame). I'm personally using a 7 year old desktop; I've changed the motherboard and added more RAM, but that's it. I do have a newer laptop, but it's much nicer to type on a mechanical keyboard and look at a 24" screen.
I don't either, so long as the computer is usable / not slow. Something can be said about software always demanding more though. OS X has largely stayed the same yet it's hardware requirements have gone from 128 MB RAM (Cheeta) to over 2 GB RAM (Lion). It makes me wonder what takes up all that memory. Both my machines have 16 GB RAM and I'm looking to replace my laptop soley because it has 4, which makes it a bit slow at times. Honestly, I'd also blame phones for driving this
Login or register to reply
128MB of RAM was enough to run Warcraft 3 and GTA: Vice City when they came out in 2002, and if you had a computer with 256MB of RAM you were in position to expect new games to run for at least two or three years. Today's games have requirements that are larger and larger with every new game release. I agree that mobile devices played their part in driving this sort of thinking, but desktop gaming did as well.
I didn't think of that. It's interesting comparing this to console gaming where the specs are frozen for years on end. Games have to be carefully optimized to squeeze every bit of performance out. Games do look better every year and I think it's developers being forced to find new tricks. Compared to a gaming PC, you can just upgrade hardware so why spend the time making it work well with 5 year old hardware?