iLok turned me into Pirate

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

As a studio owner, the most rewarding aspect is:

buying expensive software
1
13%
writing emails to tech support
2
25%
"log in to your account"
1
13%
wrangling with compatibility issues
0
No votes
just making music
4
50%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:22 pm

If you would spend more on a reliable, upgradable computer for which you can add power and speed to over time, then why don't you do it?!?! It's totally possible, you just have to build your own from components with high end performance parts in a case that is easily accessible.
First of all, I said easily upgradable (though not in the sentence you quoted). I don't know how to replace a motherboard.

And when I do eventually get a new computer, I probably will build it from scratch. But for now, my old-ass XP machine does everything I need it to. I don't need any new software. I could do with a little more RAM, but I can still do that.

People who do a lot of tech stuff, like most of the people here, can fall into the trap of thinking most people are like them and need to upgrade hardware and software often. This isn't true for a lot of people-- maybe most people. I think of people like my mom, or my wife's parents, who use the computer mostly to check and send email. It doesn't take much to be able to do that. It would make sense to have a version of a PC that's well-built and reliable for people like them. Something that will last for decades. I'd guess there's a high percentage of people who don't need high speed or power.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:31 pm

GooberNumber9 wrote:in order for a processor manufacturer to improve a processor, they must eventually change its architecture. A given architecture has a limited upgrade path. This isn't planned obselescence, it's just engineering and physics.
That's a reasonable point, which directly contradicts Justin's assertion that the reason computers aren't built to last is because of lack of demand.
there is currently no market demand for a computer that will last for 20 years. So they're simply not made that may.
I love how you guys keep saying, "this is not a conspiracy" when I never said it was a conspiracy.

It's often the case that things are designed to crap out after a certain amount of time these days. Deliberately designed that way when they could just as easily and cheaply last longer. There's no conspiracy involved, or necessary, just decisions made by individual companies. Whether this applies to personal computers or not is beside the point, at least as far as I'm concerned... it does tie in with the OP's complaint, though.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:35 pm

**edit**
GooberNumber9 said most of what I'm about to say in a crosspost.


ubertar wrote:There's no reason computers can't be made to be easily upgradable and last for more than 20 years, other than it means less profit for the manufacturers.
well, it would also stifle technological advancement...

ubertar wrote:I'd spend more on a computer built to last, that I could replace parts for to add power and speed over time.
When you say "computer", are you talking about just the metal case that it comes in? I ask because most computers can still be modified to add power and speed over time, to a certain extent. But, at some point, the demands for more power and speed demand rethinking the architecture. We're talking about technology that is SIGNIFICANTLY more advanced than a vintage mic preamp or compressor. I'm really glad that the computer industry hasn't just settled on "fast enough" or "powerful enough" just so they could maintain backwards compatibility with old tech.

I understand that some people don't give a shit about being on the bleeding edge of technology. But, the idea that today's tech, which sees EXPONENTIAL growth in speed, power, and performance, should resemble the tech of the past, which was much more linear in how it achieved a working design, and then refined that design over decades, is kinda ridiculous.

Faster computers come out every year. Nobody in the audio industry is required to buy a new computer every year in order to keep up. A new computer purchased today, should and likely will, still be supported by most professional audio software companies for at least 3 - 5 years. In 3 - 5 years, the basic architecture of that computer will have probably changed (for the better) to allow dramatic increases in power and speed vs. what it's capable of today.

I buy a new phone every year or two. The technological advancements are typically things that I'm interested in, and they improve my life and my ability to do my job. But, that's my choice. If you just want to make phone calls, AT&T still offers copper landlines and you can get a wired telephone from the 1940s that will still plug into it and work.

Nobody is forced to upgrade any of this stuff. If what you have is working for you, then ride it out. But, at some point, if you decide you want the new bells & whistles, like current version Waves plugs, you'll have to invest in a machine that's capable of supporting those bells & whistles.

I upgrade my studio computer approximately every 5 years. That seems pretty often compared to a microphone preamp that will still be as useful in 40 years as it is today. But, we're not talking about microphone preamps. We're talking about technology that is still advancing quite rapidly.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:44 pm

I'm going to assume your response was a cross-post, since you essentially said the same thing as Goober, above, and my response to him works for your post as well.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:44 pm

ubertar wrote:I love how you guys keep saying, "this is not a conspiracy" when I never said it was a conspiracy.
Maybe you didn't. But, you've gone out of your way to make us all feel like we're suckers who've fallen "into a trap" and been swindled by advertisers. And, though that might make you feel better about your own situation and needs, it's complete bullshit, and it comes off pretty insulting.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:45 pm

ubertar wrote:I'm going to assume your response was a cross-post, since you essentially said the same thing as Goober, above, and my response to him works for your post as well.
Yeah, I edited it to acknowledge the crosspost.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:52 pm

ubertar wrote:First of all, I said easily upgradable (though not in the sentence you quoted). I don't know how to replace a motherboard.
Then what do you suppose someone like you should do when your motherboard has been replaced by better, smaller, more powerful technology?
ubertar wrote:And when I do eventually get a new computer, I probably will build it from scratch. But for now, my old-ass XP machine does everything I need it to. I don't need any new software. I could do with a little more RAM, but I can still do that.
Then, you've foiled the plan! Planned obsolescence has failed! Rejoice!
ubertar wrote:People who do a lot of tech stuff, like most of the people here, can fall into the trap of thinking most people are like them and need to upgrade hardware and software often. This isn't true for a lot of people-- maybe most people. I think of people like my mom, or my wife's parents, who use the computer mostly to check and send email. It doesn't take much to be able to do that. It would make sense to have a version of a PC that's well-built and reliable for people like them. Something that will last for decades. I'd guess there's a high percentage of people who don't need high speed or power.
If you don't need high speed or power, then what are we talking about here? If your computer, or your mom's computer breaks, are you upset that you can't buy a new one that's just as slow?

My parents have a PC that's well-built and reliable that they've been using to connect to the internet for going on a decade now. It's called an Apple Mac. It's slow. But, it's no slower than it was in 2003. They don't have any reason to upgrade, so they don't feel that their computer is showing signs of obsolescence.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:57 pm

ubertar wrote:It's often the case that things are designed to crap out after a certain amount of time these days. Deliberately designed that way when they could just as easily and cheaply last longer. There's no conspiracy involved, or necessary, just decisions made by individual companies.
I guess it just becomes more important to choose better companies. I'm not saying that I've never had a computer or phone crap out on me. But, I've never felt that it died too soon, or before I was able to get what I felt was a good value from the investment.
ubertar wrote:Whether this applies to personal computers or not is beside the point, at least as far as I'm concerned... it does tie in with the OP's complaint, though.
I'm guessing that the move to Intel chips was not a nefarious plot to force this guy to buy a new computer just so he could use Waves. His situation has nothing at all to do with "planned obsolescence" and everything to do with technological advancements.

GooberNumber9
tinnitus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:52 am
Location: Washington, DC

Post by GooberNumber9 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:00 pm

ubertar wrote:People who do a lot of tech stuff, like most of the people here, can fall into the trap of thinking most people are like them and need to upgrade hardware and software often. This isn't true for a lot of people-- maybe most people. I think of people like my mom, or my wife's parents, who use the computer mostly to check and send email. It doesn't take much to be able to do that. It would make sense to have a version of a PC that's well-built and reliable for people like them. Something that will last for decades. I'd guess there's a high percentage of people who don't need high speed or power.
Many computers made these days can last decades. I recycle 10 year old computers where I work every year. I don't recycle them because they stopped working, I recycle them because they can't even browse the web effectively anymore.

If you want to watch Netflix or follow a sample chess game or connect to the internet wirelessly or do any of a number of seemingly simple things, you can't have a computer that's too old. Web technology changes pretty quickly also, and it doesn't take long before you start getting messages saying "This web page cannot be viewed on your browser. Please upgrade to the latest version of <whatever>." Eventually, you can't upgrade any more without upgrading your hardware.

But let's forget about that for a second. People totally use very old computers all the time. I can't think of anybody right now, but some famous people have held on to computers for a very long time because they just don't care about changing what they are doing.

I don't know about your mom, but my mom is 70 and definitely wants to keep her computer fairly up-to-date so she can edit and share pictures of her grandkids and Skype with far off family members and do pretty much all the things that I do on my computer except record, edit, and mix audio.

And lastly, regarding "easily upgradable": What other durable good can be made to work better by a consumer with no training and just a YouTube video or a few forum posts for guidance? Certainly replacing a motherboard is a lot easier than any automotive repair or upgrade (and safer, these days). I suppose you might be able to replace the derailleurs on a bicycle for about the same amount of effort, but getting the correct cable lengths and tensions does not seem very easy to me. Most everything else I can think of: TVs, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, etc. pretty much can't be repaired or upgraded at all. I suppose you can put a new shower head in your bathroom or one of those spray nozzles on your kitchen sink pretty easily also. I think changing out a motherboard is easier than putting locking tuners on a guitar.

An Intel-based personal computer might be one of the most user-configurable, upgradable, and flexible durable goods in existence.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:05 pm

chris harris wrote:
ubertar wrote:Whether this applies to personal computers or not is beside the point, at least as far as I'm concerned... it does tie in with the OP's complaint, though.
I'm guessing that the move to Intel chips was not a nefarious plot to force this guy to buy a new computer just so he could use Waves. His situation has nothing at all to do with "planned obsolescence" and everything to do with technological advancements.

Dooooood. What part of "beside the point" do you not get? Apparently what I'm saying here is too subtle for you to grasp-- I'm acknowledging that "planned obsolescence" may not apply to personal computers. In that light, everything you've just posted above is silly and pointless.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:11 pm

chris harris wrote:
ubertar wrote:I love how you guys keep saying, "this is not a conspiracy" when I never said it was a conspiracy.
Maybe you didn't. But, you've gone out of your way to make us all feel like we're suckers who've fallen "into a trap" and been swindled by advertisers. And, though that might make you feel better about your own situation and needs, it's complete bullshit, and it comes off pretty insulting.
I haven't gone out of my way, not by an inch. And I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.

Is this what you're referring to?
Advertisers want us to think you always need to get the newest, hippest thing-- the new ipod or iphone or whatever, and clearly lots of people buy into that, but not everyone. It's not a conspiracy, but it's a philosophy of how to do business that's fundamentally different from back when people made things well.


I said "lots of people" buy into that. Somehow you assume that means you? If you were offended by the statement that lots of people buy into the messages that are advertised, frankly you deserve to be. Of course lots of people buy into what the advertisers are selling, or companies wouldn't continue spending so much on advertising.

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6671
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:23 pm

ubertar, a smart dude like you can easily figure out how to change a motherboard. there's nothing to it.

i don't have much to add except that every time i've gotten a new computer it costs less than the one before it and is way faster/more powerful. this is a good thing, no? i don't expect them to last for 10 years, nor would i even want/need them to.

that said, every time i've replaced them, it's been because i wanted to, not because the old one died or anything. i don't think it's a matter of planned obsolescence at all, just technology advancing very quickly. and there's nowt wrong with that.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:33 pm

ubertar wrote:
chris harris wrote:
ubertar wrote:Whether this applies to personal computers or not is beside the point, at least as far as I'm concerned... it does tie in with the OP's complaint, though.
I'm guessing that the move to Intel chips was not a nefarious plot to force this guy to buy a new computer just so he could use Waves. His situation has nothing at all to do with "planned obsolescence" and everything to do with technological advancements.

Dooooood. What part of "beside the point" do you not get? Apparently what I'm saying here is too subtle for you to grasp-- I'm acknowledging that "planned obsolescence" may not apply to personal computers. In that light, everything you've just posted above is silly and pointless.
Ahhh, you're right. I misunderstood. Apologies.
If I understand now, by "beside the point" you mean to suggest that this side-track discussion is pretty irrelevant to the original topic. In that light, everything you've posted regarding your desire for a 20-year computer is pretty silly and pointless, too.

Sure, it ties in with the OP's original complaint, but only in so far as it invalidates that part of the complaint.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:33 pm

Hey Scott. As I said upthread, the planned obsolescence thing may not apply to personal computers. It's where the OP started from, so it's the example that's been used. Just because the frequent obsolescence of computers and software may not be a result of planned obsolescence doesn't mean that there aren't lots of examples of things that are. One mentioned in the film is the existence in some printers of a chip that counts how many prints are made and makes the printer stop working after a certain count. I think I have a rep on this board as a luddite and everything I write is read through that lens. I'm quite happy with the pace of technological advancement-- if anything, it's too slow. I hope to make it to the singularity. :D

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:37 pm

chris harris wrote:Ahhh, you're right. I misunderstood. Apologies.
If I understand now, by "beside the point" you mean to suggest that this side-track discussion is pretty irrelevant to the original topic. In that light, everything you've posted regarding your desire for a 20-year computer is pretty silly and pointless, too.

Sure, it ties in with the OP's original complaint, but only in so far as it invalidates that part of the complaint.
Ok, we're cool now. My pointing out that it ties in with the OP's original complaint was just saying I understand why people are framing the planned obsolescence discussion in that context, even though it's a poor example.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests