what is the average lifespan of a desktop computer ?

[piasabird]

Your poll is kind of subjective. A gamer might say 3 years and and office worker might say 7 years. However, for general use, a computer might last 3-6 years depending on what you expect. A lot depends on how new the parts are that go into the computer and if they are underpowered moderately powered or high-end powered.

If you live in an area where the computer is exposed to higher temperatures or excess dust this could also shorten the lifespan of a computer. Even using an SSD can have the possibility of shortening a lifespan of a computer.

There can be some advantages to beefing up the RAM when you build the computer. Over time it always seems it would be nice to have more RAM 2 years later. If you use an SSD, having more RAM could make it last longer.

 

[lehtv]

How is it possible that this troll thread is STILL gathering replies? You're beating a dead horse, people.





And you're threadcrapping.

The mods are aware of this thread and are allowing it to proceed, sans the threadcrapping posts such as yours.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[RayTheKing]

It may be a troll, but I liked the discussion. Nothing like the Off Topic forum .__.

 

[Charlie98]

I remember in the past, that Microsoft would produce a dramatically new and better OS. E.g. Windows 3.1 vs old Dos.
But in order to move to the new OS, one had to go out and buy a new computer, because the existing one had way too little RAM, was too slow, and the graphics system was unsuitable (and expansion needed a new socket type, so changing the graphics card was NOT viable).

These days it's more like (at least in my case), waiting out with Windows 7 (and Linux etc), until Windows 9 (or whatever it's called) comes out, which is (hopefully!) worth getting.

It seems like the software makers are just kicking out marginally new-and-improved wares just to have something new on the shelf. Of course, they discontinue support for the older software to force you to upgrade... but that is a subject of another thread.

 

[Durvelle27]

I voted 10 years as I'm still running some Pentium IIs and 4s with no problem

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It seems like the software makers are just kicking out marginally new-and-improved wares just to have something new on the shelf. Of course, they discontinue support for the older software to force you to upgrade... but that is a subject of another thread.

I agree, a good point.

Microsoft seem (this is my OWN opinion) to actually design certain elements of their new operating systems, so that people will tend to be forced to change/upgrade to a newer Microsoft OS, long before the age of the PC has made it in-viable.

E.g. Some (probably MOST) windows 7 versions (at least Win 7 Home Premium), have built in hard 16 Gb Ram HARD limits.
I.e. They will NOT allow you to use more than 16 Gb of ram.

This seems to be intended, so that as ram becomes cheaper and much high capacity, as the years roll on. 16 Gb's (as big as it sounds today), will be too small.

Past examples are that older versions of windows (i.e. 32 bits), would not allow/use more than 4 Gb (actually less than this was usable in practice).
Although this was because 32 bit addresses can't access any more, so it is a BAD example.
But in principle, 64 bit XP's were viable, but rather poorly supported by Microsoft, as regards drivers, so usually not used in practice. (I'm not 100% sure if it was Microsoft's or the vendors fault, re:lack of decent drivers support).

With older windows OS's, they tended to limit the maximum disk and/or partition sizes. Again this may have been to design in built in obsolescence, to force upgrading/replacing a machine before it was physically too old to operate.

In all fairness to Microsoft, I have to admit that Apple seem to do similar things, but in different ways. E.g. Apple apparently changing perfectly good connectors, for no apparently good reason.

 

[schmuckley]

I picked 3 years,I'm probably not the best example, though..I might change platforms 3x in a day.Anything with L3 cache and 4 cores is good for gaming.

 

[Sheep221]

The technical lifespan of desktop computer is probably 10 years or more, the gaming and DC rigs tend to work no more than 6 years because of higher load that is put on them. But I still use some old parts in my SB rig, the GPU and screen is from 2010, NIC, case and printer is 2004, one HDD is from 2009, but most stuff I got is from 2012 when I did massive upgrade of most old hardware I had, including monitors, rigs and their equipment, at the time of upgrade I was replacing 10 year and older equipment.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Most CPUs degrade slowly with use.

I recall reading years ago speed binning the CPU is often done so that the chip will run stable at the defined speed and voltage for 10 years (which means giving it a little headroom when it's brand new).

But the things that are subject to uglier conditions like power supplies (especially with noisy input power) and fans (especially in dusty areas) tend to fail much earlier, though they are replaceable.

Same goes for cards like GPUs. If they get clogged with dust and start running hot, their lifespan goes way down.

Hard drives have an MTBF of around 10 years as well, but some fraction die in 2-5 years and some will last 20.

Other parts will vary similarly.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

The system I built 13 years ago is still running, though it's been almost completely gutted (drives, GPU, power supply, RAM all replaced).

 

[HeXen]

From my experience, it seems the Motherboard is the most vulnerable to sudden death before it's time. I even had 2 different Gigabyte Ultra Durable mobo's with 2 bios's go bad on me within a couple years and I could never get the second bios to kick in, assuming that was the issue.

Seems the cheap ones always lasted me much longer than the higher end gaming mobo's. Some of which I either never OC'ed or kept it OC'ed for long.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

From my experience, it seems the Motherboard is the most vulnerable to sudden death before it's time. I even had 2 different Gigabyte Ultra Durable mobo's with 2 bios's go bad on me within a couple years and I could never get the second bios to kick in, assuming that was the issue.

Seems the cheap ones always lasted me much longer than the higher end gaming mobo's. Some of which I either never OC'ed or kept it OC'ed for long.

I've also had similar results, in that the motherboard tends to be a common failure, as the computer ages.

I've heard that there are at least three reasons why cheap/simple motherboards may last longer than expensive complicated ones:

1. The expensive/high performance ones usually run at higher clock speeds (to give better performance, less true these days, as more and more stuff is on-chip in the cpu) and have more functionality in their chips, and so can run a fair bit hotter inside the chip, and hence wear out sooner and more frequently.
   
2. They can have way fewer components on them (e.g. half the number), and some theories on reliability, say that the more components there are, the more potential points of failure, that there are. Hence significantly improved reliability (compared to complicated motherboards), potentially.
   
3. The cheap motherboards would make little/no profit if they got returned under guarantee. So they tend to produce them as extremely reliable units, so that they get hardly any returns on them.

I've read article(s), saying pretty much the above, but I am not 100% sure, how true it is in practice. But I find it believable, and some/all of the points are electronically true as well.