StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rather simple question, do computer parts(Graphic cards, CPUs, motherboards, etc.) degrade over time if not used? I have a shelf full of hardware, all in sealed bags, collecting dust on the bags. Any use in keeping them if they're not used or should I just junk them?

or should I just junk them?

Even if you don't intend to use them, don't junk them (assuming you mean throwing them out with the trash). As long as something works or can be repaired, there's someone out there who can use it. Donate them to charity or a used goods shop.

The answer to the question is no Ace Pace, or in my personal experience the answer is no. I have spent long years in naval service working with the flower of 1970's technology, but sometimes we get late 80's, early 90's tech as well. I have found 12 year old SODIMM's that worked just fine once we cracked the seal and installed them. Likewise not all parts are refurbs, some of them were extra stock. When working at one remote location we had six full computers worth of spare parts for Pentium 1's (200Mhtz!) which would mean they were roughly 11 years old when we pried the old one out(Died due to ESD) put the new one in and the computer was still good to go.

From a retail perspective they do, simply because warranties are a'ticking, but in terms of hardware failure? Not really, barring the 'shelf' or analogous space being jounced around and/or bursting into flames.

I suppose its possible that, given enough time, the ICs would eventually succumb to cosmic ray strikes. I have no idea what the timeframe for that would be, though.

You used an ancient 386 in 1997 ?

Backdated.

I don't think old machines become totally useless after 8-10 years. The Pentium 1 machine with 64 MB RAM running Win 2K I have can still use the modern internet, play mp3s, do wordprocessing, play movies and most other things except play post 2001 games. It does all of these tasks faster than the 2 GHZ P4 with 1 GB RAM I tried Vista on. Had I not been a gamer I would be perfectly satisfied with this PC today.

Why non gamer people change computers so often confounds me. Would not something between a 486 and a pentium 2 (with a few USB and other new interfaces) be enough for most people ?

These days there isn't a very good reason for home use and, in fact, I'm seeing more and more people just using their Ghz+ machines until they die (I'm still servicing an original Athlon 900Mhz at my dad's studio). For medium to big corporations though, its different since they depend on servicing contracts and those usually only cover machines so many years for various reasons.

Still, those half a Ghz or lower machines are justifiably being replaced in light use at home/office settings - they utterly suck at multitasking and its physically impossible (not to mention not cost effective these days) to stuff enough RAM into them to make it smooth. Sure, as long as you're using only the browser or only Word or only whatever, it works perfectly fine, but as soon as you start alt-tabbing the HD grinding starts and you are losing useful productive time waiting. Hence those computers getting replaced.

Sarevok wrote:I don't think old machines become totally useless after 8-10 years. The Pentium 1 machine with 64 MB RAM running Win 2K I have can still use the modern internet, play mp3s, do wordprocessing, play movies and most other things except play post 2001 games. It does all of these tasks faster than the 2 GHZ P4 with 1 GB RAM I tried Vista on. Had I not been a gamer I would be perfectly satisfied with this PC today.

Why non gamer people change computers so often confounds me. Would not something between a 486 and a pentium 2 (with a few USB and other new interfaces) be enough for most people ?

I'm pretty sure that Pentium 1 would gag on any HD content, and I'm willing to bet any Flash content would absolutely hammer that poor little CPU.

The problem lies with software. The average P4 owned by an average person is not noticably faster than the P1 he may have owned in 1998. Software keeps getting slower and more inefficient so the improvments in hardware field are lost. It does not matter how many gigs of RAM I have now. The same tasks will require 2-3 times more RAM few years later.

New software is often more efficient. It just very common it happens todo a few orders of magnitude more in addition to the old stuff.

Sarevok wrote:The problem lies with software. The average P4 owned by an average person is not noticably faster than the P1 he may have owned in 1998. Software keeps getting slower and more inefficient so the improvments in hardware field are lost. It does not matter how many gigs of RAM I have now. The same tasks will require 2-3 times more RAM few years later.

Based on hardware, an "average" computer from 1998 browsing the internet today will be noticeably slower than an "average" computer of today. I guarantee it.

Why? Flash. Flash gobbles down CPU time so hard. Also, that 64MB of RAM will choke up when confronted with a particularly image-heavy website. I'm not terribly confident that plucky little machine would handle Youtube too well, either; and that's definitely a popular application these days.

I think he meant that today's computer doing today's stuff is no faster than a 1998 machine doing 1998 stuff.

Yeah. I am not against adding new functionality. But that new functionality comes at price of adding new expensive hardware to do age old tasks like typing simple text documents or playing a mp3 song.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I think he meant that today's computer doing today's stuff is no faster than a 1998 machine doing 1998 stuff.

Funny you should say that, because I remember thinking the other day "damn, since I got a core2duo I haven't seen an application splash screen". And aside from games I seriously have not, not a single load screen except maybe a flash of one. By contrast my 350mhz G3 from the stone age GRINDS the hard drive and takes ~1minute or more to start word 97, and it's considerably more powerful than a Pentium 1.