Specifically to Oldiron.
If equipment is running well, and doing what is required, why should the user spend good money to replace it? My main machine is 10 years old this year, and does all that I need. It's true that I added extra RAM (to make it the same as my backup machine) and I changed the hard drive (same reason), and a few years ago I had to dismantle it to clean the exhaust outlet (it's a laptop and was overheating), nevertheless it does all that I want and need.
I use Linux Mint v.18.1 and regularly receive updates: these are performed at a time convenient to me, not at 3.00 am, or whatever time Microsoft dictates. I also use old versions of some software because a) they do the job I want, and reliably; and b) I have paid for them. One of the programs is indeed obsolete, with no equivalent replacement, therefore I would have to learn a new program, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination, especially as the program does what I want. The other old program could be updated – at a cost, but why should I when the old one is adequate for my needs?
The other software that I use is open-source and as such gets updated as and when necessary by the program support team at nil cost.
I have to say that when I hear, or read, people saying that you should update because of whatever, I do feel that these people have more money than sense. I also feel that this is a symptom of today's throwaway society. I absolutely will not replace equipment, of any sort, just to keep up with the Jones: this is why we have, for example, a 18 year old washing machine, a 20 year old caravan, and until we were forced into it due to incompatibilities, a 17 year old television. Yes, I'm well aware that modern equipment is supposedly more efficient, but if you take the overall cost of making the item in the first place, I do wonder just how much is being saved? Just consider this: There has been a lot of hoo-ha over lighting – incandescents wasting electricity in the form of heat, but were they? That heat was helping to warm the room. So we changed to CFC's. Vastly more expensive to buy, contained as I understand it, mercury, and the part that "they" didn't tell you, a gradually diminishing light output. Today, the buzz word appears to be LED's. Ok, we have a room which is dark at the best of times so last September we obtained three of the most powerful LED's available. Since then, one has failed (flickering and replaced under warranty), and now another appears to be failing (flickering again). At £15 each one has to wonder. Using incandescents, we never had a problem, other than the short life span.
Back to computing. I actually have three laptops, with the one written about above being the oldest, as my main machine. Of the other two, the backup is a better machine, bought S/H, but still old, whilst the third was rescued before my daughter sent it to the tip. It is now doing sterling service as an experimental machine, even if does have the wrong keyboard, the DVD player is somewhat duff, and the ethernet port doesn't seem to work properly.
It isn't that I can't afford to buy new – I just cannot see the necessity of scrapping something that does what is required.
And yes, I do understand that new software includes new facilities. My 5 year old car, bought new, has features on it which I have never used. That says it all.
Regards,
Peter G. Shaw