Not a Game-Changer

Over the past several weeks, I have given some considerable thought to the possibility of replacing one or both of our home PCs. After all those deliberations, approaching the question from multiple angles, and generally agonising over the question, I've come to a decision.

I'm not going to bother.

The thing is, both our home PCs are now at least five years old, and that being the case it feels like they should be due for a replacement. This is especially true of LC's laptop, which intermittently suffers from performance issues. And yet, both PCs quite happily do what we want them to do, so it would mostly be just about getting new PCs that do the same jobs better.

The first machine I decided not to replace was my desktop PC. Here, the thing that I thought was going to be a compelling reason to upgrade was to add USB 3 sockets to the machine. The lack of such sockets would represent a distinct limitation in the machine. (You can add such support later by inserting an expansion card, but my experience of similar upgrades in the past is that they're not very satisfying - they work, but not terribly well. So faced with the choice, I'd be inclined to upgrade.)

However, having dug through the specifications for the machine, I was surprised to find that many of the USB sockets are already USB 3. The upshot of this is that there's no hardware limitation to compel a replacement. And that means that any such replacement would be about performance gains.

But digging through those specificiations highlighted that the PC was actually a fairly high-end machine when I got it. Indeed, it appears that it was actually marketed and sold as a gaming PC (despite my never having had any intention to use it for gaming - and indeed I never have). I'm not entirely sure why I went for what was a vastly over-specced machine at the time, but I'm rather glad I did - this machine should remain perfectly adequate for what I actually need for several years to come.

The decision regarding LC's laptop was somewhat more complex, for a while. Given the known issues with the machine, there would seem to be a good case for an upgrade.

However, it turned out that the issues with the machine were largely due to software configuration. There was a problem with the anti-virus software which I was able to sort out. Additionally, there's a small problem in that the machine is itself only used intermittently, which means that when it does get used, it immediately finds several updates and a virus scan that are urgently required. Keep on top of those, and the performance issues largely go away.

The upshot is that in both cases an upgrade is possible, but in both cases it would represent a significant expenditure for an incremental, rather than revolutionary, improvement - a nice-to-have, but not worth the investment of funds.

The other thing that my investigations turned up is that, for both machines, there are two upgrades that are worth making and that will provide much, if not most, of the benefits of replacing the machines at a fraction of the cost. Specifically, both machines would benefit from more RAM (especially the laptop, which is running with 4GB where Windows 10 really wants at least 8), and both machines would also benefit from switching to a solid-state hard drive.

So it looks like I might be delving back into the world of PC upgrades, something I've not tackled in a decade or so.