Old hardware/software = known quantity, most bugs fixed or documented (= easier to circumvent). Fast enough for audio, office work, web browsing for a very long time (€200 machine will last 5-8 years).

New hardware/softwarw = new, unknown bugs, unpaid beta tester, little documentation. First generation always has issues, get unlucky = no fix until product refresh (= pay again). Pay premium for having the latest of something. Newer stuff = often more locked down and less customisable.

 

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Wow! I thought I was just getting a regular Foster update, but who knew Foster’s next evolution would be some female/trans avatarian edition that embodies the idea of 'serene enchantments'? That’s one way of trying to keep us on our toes!

Welcome back and let's arrange an Incontro with FtrOllSTER⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️

 

Last edited: Feb 8, 2025 at 2:12 PM

It's all pretty much about creating content - music/video and you need a reliable computer. Once you manage to assemble one and use it for years, it's not so trivial to get a new one and install everything you use overnight. It's actually impossible and it takes a lot of time... and for what?

I'm actually using a very modern OS - Debian 12. It was released last year.
However, I have Windows 10 on my old laptop and several Windows 7 backups for both computers, with all the software, ready to be installed within minutes, because you never know.

Buying older and second hand hardware will not only save you money, but it will save you from many headaches with ultra new computers which haven't been tested as much. It's always a good idea to buy somewhat older components that have the latest or last ever BIOS and drivers. Never buy anything v1.0! That goes for software, too.

 

I want to know why people that change plugin parameters ten years after probably aren't making music professionally?

sorry about my english, I am trying

 

you can produce good stuff with just an ol MPC and few vinyls, a mic or a piano, a bass & guitar and a cheap synth. nothing more.

 

Last edited: Feb 8, 2025 at 6:11 PM

in order to understand the world, you must observe the world. Upgrades and New operating systems do not exist for the benefit of the buyer (aka often the USER). they exist to generate revenue and perhaps income to the seller.

if a thing works, doing a task well, we have a reasonable expectation it will continue to do so, barring physical damage etc.

Why would any sane person spend money, time and frustration, replacing a working machine and software with an unknown entity?
1. social pressure (clicks and likes in their own mind)
2. Advertising and marketing - the basis of which is always, "you are inadequate and can only be made whole by buying whatever we are selling."

an older machine has.

1. cheap replacement parts
2. is usually easy to upgrade
3. has a vast body of troubleshooting knowledge easily available on the internet
4. ongoing and maintenance cost is a fraction of a fraction what buying a new machine would cost.
5. its a known entity, that is understood by the user and requires no learning curve or wasted time to use.

in the history of mankind, a machine was only replaced when it wore out or was obsolete because of an amazing advance in invention or manufacture. a dot or point upgrade to a piece of software is not an amazing advancement.

most "advancements" in operating systems in the windows world have been to add telemetery to spy on the user or purchaser of the software ,and to feed advertising into operating system, as well as driving them to using online subscriptions for previously stand alone (user owned) software.

Android has always been an internet payment system grafted to a web browser, its not really an operating system, just a way to keep selling you the same old shit over and over, why would anyone upgrade it? to buy more shit, thats the only thing the upgrades do.

Apple is a closed system that farms their users just like microsoft, but is cozier and comes with a guaranteed sense of superiority and luxury, which are mostly intangibles that cost a lot of extra money.

LInux runs on anything (apple os is a unix/linux variant, the difference being in the kernel and the licensing) - but linux is a threat to the other 3 paths and will never be embraced by them except to plant seed of instability and attempt to drive users back to the welcoming arms of big tech as long they open their wallets..

in summary why try to fix what aint broken?