Some people apparently believe that computers become slower as they age. They believe that the older the computer, the longer it will take to boot, and the longer it will take to start userland programs. The commonly offered "solution" is to do a "factory reset" of the computer, or to replace the computer with a new computer.
My computer has run on Ubuntu for nearly 6 years now, and I do not notice any slowdown. It is just as fast as when I bought it.
Is there any truth to the belief that computers become slower as they age? Is it just a Microsoft Windows thing?
Maybe another case of programmed obsolescence. Also, windows has a shit ton of stupid performance problems, and like 80% of them are related to the file system (fragmentation, "cacheing", stupid apis, &c). Just try to move a real big file in ms win to another directory. It is going to take ages.
Basically, crappy user programs * stupid ms windows * lots of useless shit shipped by default with the computers = lots of unnecesary work needed to be done by the computer in order to get basic functionality, giving the false sensation of the computer "ageing".
If you keep updating your computer's operating system, it will lead to decreased performance, as the new software dands more and more of the same hardware.
Every new version of windows increases the minimum system requirements, while offering nothing the user didn't already have.
The same can be seen with GNU/Linux too, but with it the "resource inflation" is at a reasonable level.
I don't know if defragging is still a thing in windows (I haven't used it in years) but it used to be.
>>3
I don't think this phenomena applies to desktop computers anymore. It definitely used to, back when new computers were actually significantly faster than previous generations, but not anymore since hardware performance is stagnating. Unlike on mobiles, where a three year old device won't be able to cope with most new "apps" because it has been developed for the latest premium category smartphone with no regards for the resource constraints of previous devices.
As D. Knuth said: software requirements grow faster than Moore's law.
Windows definitely gets slower, I think it's a side affect of the way they do virtual memory but I'm not totally sure.
I've heard people IRL say the computer is slow because "the hard disk is too full" when it's at like 80%. It pisses me off so much because it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work. Disk usage only causes slowdown if the computer has absolutely no space for cache i guess.
>>7 It's like they think disk usage is a slider that goes up with slowness.
>>6
How would that work? Virtual memory is not persistent, rebooting would make it look like as if it have sped up again.
>>7
Maybe they just understand it as an indirect measure of fragmentation. Fragmentation definitely slows down HDDs, as the head needs to seek around to read the full file out.
I remember watching the defragmentation on Windows 95 as a kid. It was mesmerizing.
>>9
Windiws makes heavy use of an internal data configuration registry. This registry is logically located throughout the filesystem. Whenever Windows needs to access a configuration within the registry, there is a cost involved in summarizing that fragmented data all together. This is why Windows systems slow down over time as people install more and more software that interacts with the Windows Registry.
The long life of Microsoft Windows is a testament to its superior ability to meet business and user needs. Windows has defeated all the amateurish operating systems such as Penguin Lunix, Demon Beastie, and Fruit OS X.
Is it just a Microsoft Windows thing?
nope, i still use my old computer with windows server 2008 on daily basis
nothing wrong att all, fast now like before
>>14
Why do you use a server OS as your desktop?
>>15
makes windows less shitty since it economically has to work