Mobile phones engineered 'not to last'

[Barty]

This thread does feel like it should be filed under the category of "everything is amazing, and every body hates it." (Don't get me wrong, I complain much as everyone else)

The reason two, three year old phones feel obsolete is mobile hardware and software are under active development. I don't hear too many people complain their PC does not get the latest OS. My PC is 4 year old and I feel zero need to upgrade. I passed on Windows 8 and will probably pass on 10. No big whoop. Since I don't game or do video, I could keep using this machine til something blows.

I know a few people who upgrade their phone every year. They spend so much time on their phone they feel it is justified. That's the evil genius of smart phones. They're useful to the point of being a necessity, but at the same time they're personal items that signal social and group status. And they're fun to play with.

Still, at some point, people will get off the smartphone upgrade thread mill. I wonder what Apple and Samsung will do then.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Barty

The reason two, three year old phones feel obsolete is mobile hardware and software are under active development. I don't hear too many people complain their PC does not get the latest OS. My PC is 4 year old and I feel zero need to upgrade. I passed on Windows 8 and will probably pass on 10. No big whoop. Since I don't game or do video, I could keep using this machine til something blows.

My PC is 11 years old and it is running the latest OS. Perhaps that is why I am not complaining.

Spoiler:

My OS releases the latest version on the first of every month.

However, the system updates will always path it to the "latest version" of that day. We don't really do "versions".

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

My PC is 11 years old and it is running the latest OS. Perhaps that is why I am not complaining.

Mine is close ... about 10.5 years old (Optiplex GX270). And I'm using the newest version of Linux Mint 13 (supported until 2017).

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Mine is close ... about 10.5 years old (Optiplex GX270). And I'm using the newest version of Linux Mint 13 (supported until 2017).

Mine is older AND more up to date.

[Pulpmeister]

I've only just swapped my ancient Nokia mobile phone (which was just a phone, nothing else) and now have a smart phone which, however, is used just as a phone, and nothing else. The new device, a small LG, is a bit easier to use as a phone, but not much (bigger screen suits older eyes), and it's still small and light enough to slip into my shirt pocket. The pre-paid SIM from my old Nokia went straight in.

I won't be changing the LG device until the battery dies.

Oh, and despite being the product that practically introduced planned obsolescence, my two automobiles are respectively 14 and 44 years old, and I'm in no hurry to upgrade those either.

[Phogg]

I never buy phones without a replaceable battery.
I have an HTC Wizard that still works if I wanted to put an older styled Sim Card in it.

Don't complain about batteries wearing out if you didn't desire longevity enough to make longevity a priority when you selected the device.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

My PC is 11 years old and it is running the latest OS. Perhaps that is why I am not complaining.

Spoiler:

My OS releases the latest version on the first of every month.

However, the system updates will always path it to the "latest version" of that day. We don't really do "versions".

Are you sure your PC can run Windows 8.1 64-bit? What processor does it have?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Are you sure your PC can run Windows 8.1 64-bit? What processor does it have?

I don't really care if my computer can run the latest bloatware. I do care if it can run the applications I use.

Spoiler:

[eschwartz@arch ~/]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo 
processor	: 0
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 13
model name	: Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor         1.40GHz
stepping	: 8
microcode	: 0x20
cpu MHz		: 1396.696
cache size	: 1024 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 1
core id		: 0
cpu cores	: 1
apicid		: 0
initial apicid	: 0
fdiv_bug	: no
f00f_bug	: no
coma_bug	: no
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 2
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe nx bts
bogomips	: 2794.78
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
power management:

[JSWolf]

[QUOTE=eschwartz;2954185]I don't really care if my computer can run the latest bloatware. I do care if it can run the applications I use.

I didn't realize this processor was released that long ago. But as long as you can run Windows 8.1 64-bit, you can run what you want.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't realize this processor was released that long ago. But as long as you can run Windows 8.1 64-bit, you can run what you want.

Alternatively, I may carry on as I have been doing. And you misunderstand -- the bloatware IS WINDOWS.
(Is there a reason you are hating on 32-bit processors? I am sure Windows 8 32-bit is every bit as lovely as the 64-bit version is, which isn't saying much...
And my processor is not 64-bit capable... I still run everything I want or need.)

Back on topic.
Windows is not engineered to last, it requires ever more power to run (a trend that may finally end permanently with Win8, which astonishingly is less bloated than the preceding Win7, I may have to reverse my judgment one day soon...) and has a horrifying habit of slowing down over time, for no discernible reason.

Case in point. A competing product, linux, runs faster on my 11-year-old laptop than Windows 7 runs on my grandmother's 2-year-old laptop.

I *suspect* it is because MS has a sweet deal with the hardware manufacturers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

(Is there a reason you are hating on 32-bit processors?

It's because if the requirements for Windows 8.1 64-bit is met, then you don't have a problem running the software you want because of not having a processor that can handle the code.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's because if the requirements for Windows 8.1 64-bit is met, then you don't have a problem running the software you want because of not having a processor that can handle the code.

You seem to be missing the point of this thread -- obsolescence. My 11-year-old laptop has no chance of supporting the latest and greatest MS products, because my processor cannot handle the code.
Just like iOS updates, now I come to think of it. Even if it installs, it runs like a bear.

My processor can handle the linux code.
Latest and greatest.
GUI and everything.
(A heavyweight one, too. )

I also don't understand what your statement has to do with the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit compile-time switches.