discussion about hardware life span

[pch.shot]

I guess we need to design our own kernels!

[pclinuxguru]

now my friend, theres an idea.

a kernel to support ALL hardware would be quite large.

But would also solve so many issues.

[pch.shot]

No. Just for your hardware. Get rid of the excess crap. It would be very small!

[pclinuxguru]

That it would. Sadly , no clue where to even start lol.

Linux has always been based on that revolving door for hardware.

out with the old and in the the new.

BUT new means a LOT.

Here is something for ya to ponder about.

14 large scale hardware manufactures

Each year they release some 3500 to 4500 hardware products ranging from laptops to pc,s to tablets and netbooks

each product receives 2 to 4 revisions per year. Due to PCB changes and die size changes etc.

Commonly revisions mean difference in drivers

So now we have a possible 504,000 pieces of hardware per year that will need drivers to work.

Ever compile a kernel ? I have and the driver list is MASSIVE. It takes from 20 min to 2 hours based on hardware to compile.

Now add 3 years of support for only 50% of then needed drivers.

You now have 756,000 pieces of hardware needed drivers.

Now clearly kernels offer far less then 50%. They tend to offer the COMMON most used hardware drivers only.

Now we are presented with the issue of what to drop to make room for other.

[pch.shot]

I agree with new. I build a new computer almost every year. I'm a sucker for latest and greatest. My new build will be an Intel 2600K cpu with a h67 chipset motherboard. I do a lot of video transcoding and I need speed for that.

[pclinuxguru]

yep, do a TON of video coding my self.

I use my 3.62 Ghz hexa core for that

[Billie Cowie]

Not quite sure if this is or isn't off topic but here goes nothing. Hardware just isn't what it used to be. When I first learned Basic it was on a 32k ( yes "k") BBC Micro and when they invented the BBC Master at 64-128K we didn't think it could get much better than this. Ah Nostalgia- ain't it grand?
Point is that, BBC Micros and Masters, Amigas, Amstrads, Commodore 64 and Archimedes,etc are still around and still working. O.K. you can't do much with them by today's standards, but just like Mt.Everest, they are still there.These are computers I played around with at College and the fact is that while they were claimed to be
" Home" computers , they were, for the time, beyond most working-peoples reach.
First computer I owned was a second-hand Mac2 , it was ten years out of date and lasted another good ten years. Retired only due to rapid advancements/improvements(?) in Os development, which brings me,perhaps, to the real question and perhaps also the reason the topic seems to have gone off at a tangent.
We are discussing hardware - lifespan in what context, - the robustness of the hardware or the ability of the computer manufacturers to keep up with software-programming & development?
I Currently have 3 computers
a DVD Imac all in one with 528 mb ram and 10gb harddrive
a Emac all in one with 728 mb ram and 80gb hard-drive
a HP Pavillion laptop with 4GB ram and 350gb harddrive
There was a time when Apple-macs would run forever -like the afore-mentioned MAC2 and it is obsolete only because of the OS -otherwise it is as solid as a Volkswagon Beetle.
Since the advent of the Imac and heavier-resource OS's for both PC & Mac ,it appears Hardware Vendors have been only too willing to build throwaway-hardware using the excuse that it is the rapid upgrading of Os's that is responsible.
So what exactly is this discussion about, the longevity of the hardware- product or the longevity of its Os-compatibility?
In the latter regard , since both my Macs are gathering dust at present, and both are power-pc architecture I am considering installing Yellow-dog Linux on both machines but do I have sufficient ram and HD space or should I simply offload them as working word-processors with Internet capability?
I would be interested in any responses to the questions raised.

[pclinuxguru]

kinda both really.

Windows is awful about forcing upgrades lol.

O look its windows 7, but not so fast. You will need a MUCH faster system to use it.

But on a hardware / physical side.

Silicon tech has a very real shelf life. 98% of it is heat based. Warmer it runs for pro long period of time, shorter the time till it degrades.

Some time they spoke of graphite replacing silicon and would up the heat tolerances and life span by 400%.

Sadly the economy tanked and R&D was put behind a decade at least estimate.

[pch.shot]

Puppy Linux will run on very little ram:
http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%20a ... tarted.htm