Why is /g/ so supportive of buying new hardware...

>>57156950
Sleep it off. It'll all seem clearer in the morning.

>>57156950
They do nothing of actual value on their computers. Expensive hardware is a surrogate for meaning in their consumerist world.

It's also for this reason why they hate OS X and Ubuntu. They are suddenly confronted with an OS that just works. They don't need "CCleaner", "Windows Privacy Fixer 2016 Enterprise Edition", rebooting 10x a week, clicking "Next" in installers, updating each program INDIVIDUALLY (ponder that for a moment to see how ridiculous it is compared to a package manager or the Apple store, which is a package manager also.), and so forth...
They're blankly staring at Ubuntu and are slowly consumed by the realization that they don't really know how to do anything of value. No more playing operating system janitor, and no more video games. Hence the hate for simple OSs.

>>57156950
"serviceable" is the key word here. I'm typing this on a laptop from 2008 and, while it definitely works and does everything that I want it to, it is definitely a pain over my Skylake-era desktop. Everything is far slower.

>>57157103
Though it's not as necessary, I still think that you should 100% have something like AppCleaner on OS X, as well. Things are not completely contained as well as I would like.

* Watches bipolar rant fest curiously *

>>57157146
>Everything is far slower.
I guarantee you it isn't. All the faster aspects are likely to come from a SSD rather than the processor or memory. Either that or you're browsing the net without script and ad blockers, and using bloated UIs that add nothing to your use of the computer.

I'm using MATE on a 12 year old laptop and it functions the same as a new all-singing all-dancing desktop, it's just with the animations turned off you don't think you are because all the "slowness" isn't hidden behind thinks flying and sliding around the screen.

>>57157227
While part of what you're saying is correct, the bit about "animations turned off" is a clear admittance that the older machine can't do a good chunk of what the newer ones can (and that's ignoring vidya gaems). My browsers on my laptop have either the exact same or a few LESS extensions than my desktop and it's still significantly slower. Combination of general speed and the fact that sites get more complex and needy every year. And let's not even get into adding RAM into the calculation so that you can have way more tabs, etc.

I'm waiting for a new battery for this laptop so that I can use it more, so maybe my opinion will slightly change once I have a Linux install up and running alongside OS X.

And yes, I do run the standard uBlock Origin and uMatrix kind of stuff.

>>57157354
>clear admittance that the older machine can't do a good chunk of what the newer ones can

The question is then whether or not they should.

>My browsers on my laptop have either the exact same or a few LESS extensions than my desktop and it's still significantly slower.

My Firefox has 8 tabs open and is using 368mb of RAM.

Don't buy in to their game, you fool. The only winning move is not to play. Don't let the internet get turned in to pay 2 play via hardware requirements.

>>57156950
>tfw sandy bridge
>tfw no reason to upgrade
feels good man

>>57157378
>whether or not they should

That loops back exactly into what I was saying: "serviceable" means you're begging the point. You're redefining the question. Instead of "it's just as good" you really mean "it's just as good for the things that I believe are enough."

Drawing that line in the sand is already admitting that they're not nearly as good. And not everyone wants to be stuck with fucking turn-of-the-millenium functionality. It's not "pay 2 play via hardware requirements" but instead the general progression of technology. ISPs say no one needs faster Internet speeds but those of us with a brain know that we use more and more data as time goes on because we're developing applications that do more and more. Are you seriously lobbying for the luddites?

>>57157400
>tfw 10W TDP fanless celeron laptop
feels bad man

>>57157413
>the general progression of technology.

Which coincidentally benefits only those doing the progression.

> we're developing applications that do more and more

That's a lie and you know it.

>Are you seriously lobbying for the luddites?

You do know that the problem the Luddites had with industry was the de-humanising nature of the factories?

Besides, this isn't about advancement, it's about misleading people with the promise of advancement. What is currently happening is people are concentrating on copying manuscripts faster, rather than developing the printing press.

And as for your first point, how about this hypothetical situation: someone develops an OS that requires 65gb of RAM and 4 i7 processors just for the desktop. Would you consider that an advancement worthy of supporting?

>>57157772
>this guy is actually on /g/

>>57157811
Good comeback.

Unfortunately it still doesn't tackle the central point. No one could ever make the argument that there's no difference in the essential functions of a Commadore 64 and a machine running BeOS. There isn't a single similar aspect between their function or presentation, or even capabilities.

But if you look at launch XP machine and a launch Windows 10 machine, the same distinction doesn't apply. Someone who was in a coma between the two could recognise it as essentially the same thing.

This is my issue.

>was about to say that a pentium 4 machine was unuseable
>think for a second


fuck....getting old...

>>57157413
The advancement of hardware without a requirement for it forces the requirement without reason. It's basically induced demand for computers.

>>57156950
The quality of pretty much all of 4chan and it's userbase has dropped dramatically but I feel as if there's going to be 2 types of people that are buying latest hardware:

One group is the people who are just buying this stuff because they have to have it, they think they reply need the brand new thing before anybody else, they'll probably stick to brands and be the consumerist.

There's another type of person who buys new stuff for legitimate reasons, like because they have a genuine interest in the physics or science behind the components and tend to actually fiddle with their parts or being a hobby technician. These types of people are consumerists but they're not stupid.

I imagine there may be some business scenario where buying some type of latest computer hardware would be a benefit but I can't think of any.

I can't understand the appeal of buying the latest thing knowing that its price will drop significantly in a year or two.

I wonder how many mac users come close to needing or even benefiting from a new computer for the performance.

>>57158110
You can pick up 5 year old hardware for disgustingly cheap. Or if you know the right people (spoilers: they're the people who buy new hardware in the first place) you can get even newer for the same price. You could literally never pay more than £100 for a computer for the rest of your days and be more than happy. Slap an SSD in to them and you're laughing.

If people want to pay for the "latest and greatest" hardware that they'll outgrow in a year or two because they're morons, then give it to me for next-to nothing, I'm not complaining.

File: plush-steve-jobs.jpg (38KB, 325x414px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 325x414px

>>57156950

Look, if you're poor - that's fine, nobody is making you upgrade...


To a degree though you have a point. I'm using a 6 year old PC that is perfectly fine for what I need it to do as far as internet access, and development applications.

As such I personally don't have a need to upgrade at this time... so I don't...

*however* most of the people who do talk about upgrading all the time are gamers... and they *do* use heavy duty processing power.

(Before you ask: no, my 6 year old rig absolutely CANNOT play newer games at 1080p... but my rig wasn't designed to do that. It can however run all three of my monitors, as well as Chrome, Atom, YouTube, TeamViewer, etc... which is all I need at this time... but that doesn't mean my system would suit someone else.)

>>57157881
You seem a bit disconnected from reality. Maybe that's why all this seems so weird to you?

>>57158161
People buy new shit because retailers market shit as far better than it really is. They fill their computers with viruses and fuckall, and when the shitter gets clogged they turn to the latest ads with the "newest i5000 gigabyte of hardrams for dirt fucking cheap" when all they need is some common sense and a format.

>>57157881

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucCxtgN6sc

>>57157881
>between the two could recognise it as essentially the same thing

Actually, no. Give that user an HTC Vive and load a virtual desktop. That's something completely different and unavailable to XP.

You're categorically wrong, anon. You don't have to like the direction things are headed, and that's fine, but the world doesn't revolve around you-- that's something you're going to have to accept.

>>57158278
World doesn't revolve around you, either. You just happen to like being in the orbit of who it does revolve around.

>>57157413
>Are you seriously lobbying for the luddites?

What if I support more energy efficient hardware rather than more powerful hardware? And with the current trend towards green technology it sounds like you're the real luddite, anon.

theyre kind of like those guys who install spoilers on ordinary roadcars just because they installed a loud muffler

File: 1468187894063.jpg (98KB, 767x767px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 767x767px

>>57158218
After recommending a few computers to businesses I quickly realized why so many technicians and IT guys sold 16gb+ of RAM to people who needed it for web browsing, email and word processing.

It's because these people will have multiple tabs open for social media, some youtube video playing, Skype running in the background, outlook open, 3 word documents open, some antivirus running frequent checks, 20 tabs of random websites open in chrome and all the fucking malware they accumulate they'll come back to you and complain about their computer being slow and guess who gets blamed for doing a shirty job?

>>57160391
>16gb
16 gram barns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_%28unit%29
Surely you mean GiB.

>>57160391
I see no problem with this

File: geez.jpg (8KB, 180x221px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 180x221px

>>57156950
Sour grapes: The post

>>57160717
This.

OP is so jealous he's not making other people rich!

>tfw gave CEO a pay rise today

File: le_poorfag_xdlol=).gif (542KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 500x378px

>Why do you buy new shoes every week?
>LMAO poorfag sour grapes

>>57160746
So what personal arbitrary metric should, in your opinion, apply to tech purposes?

>>57159797
are you calling me your world? that's so romantic.

shit, no... retarded, that's the r word i was looking for

you're retarded.

>You don't get any money from your RAM and processor sales so why do you enforce the "upgrade" to it

Same also applies to the GNOME, KDE, and Unity developers. Apple and Microsoft making you buy new hardware makes sense since they profit from the purchase of said hardware. The same does not apply to these Linux devs, so why increase the hardware requirements even a single point?

You could always argue that they will benefit from more users if they did make them function much better on far lesser hardware.

>>57160851
Same as anything else "what does this add?" Animations add nothing to the use of a computer, neither do transparency effects. This applies more the UIs and OSs than individual software, but that Open/Libreoffice have the same capabilities as 15 year old Office suites (so does current MS Office, by the way) and consume so much more of a system's resources.

Any one with an interest in technology shouldn't accept this.

>>57160964
The animations do serve a purpose.

They make you think the money you just spent went somewhere.

>Wow it goes wooshy and it didn't woosh before
>This sure was worth the hundreds I spent on this new version