# Your views on repair/upgrade vs replacement?



## Thou Dog (May 23, 2011)

Hey all,

What are your decision criteria when you're contemplating whether to repair or seriously upgrade a machine, vs replace it? I know the general rule of thumb that says, if working on it costs half or more the cost of a new machine, get a new one; but I'm sure there are other criteria people might use.

Slightly off that topic, when you're trying to restore function to a broken machine, how much is a reasonable amount to spend on things like data recovery? (Assuming you haven't exercised forethought and backed up your irreplaceable stuff... but if you can afford to spend between $50 and $150, get an external HDD or somethhing.) I've never come across a situation where I wanted to try to recover even my most precious stuff after a mechanical drive failure, where even attempting recovery costs hundreds of dollars at the very least, but I'm wondering if there is a situation that warrants that kind of expenditure.

Lastly, if you replace a machine rather than upgrade it, would you discard the old machine (either junk it or donate/sell it to someone else), or would you keep it and use it as a backup server/word processor/statistical engine/etc.?


----------



## TheUnicorn (May 23, 2011)

My decision about whether to replace or seriously upgrade depends on a couple main factors both of which relate to the mother board. 

Is my motherboard able to accept the most recent CPU or how close to the most recent CPU? CPU upgrades are usually when you begin replacing rather than upgrading if the CPU you wish to upgrade to also requires you to replace your mother board. At this point with a motherboard and CPU to replace you've already replaced the majority of your less interchangeable parts.

Is my motherboard able to accept the Memory upgrade I want and if not how close can it get to, if i'm replacing my motherboard for a memory upgrade will it still take my old CPU? If it does how advanced of a CPU will it take in the future?

If you're basically replacing your motherboard, memory, and cpu + one of your more interchangeable bits such as video card or psu then i'd basically say must replace. If you're just replacing the primary guts and willing to wait til you can get what you want on sale then it'd probably be better to wait and upgrade.

As for mechanical drive failure recovery unless the data is irreplaceable such as images that were taken of dead friends or relatives then only you can put a number on such a sentimental value. Anything that can be replaced or recreated through a decent effort then perhaps it's not worth it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 23, 2011)

The answer to this question entirely depends on what the hardware that's up for upgrade or replacement is.  Some machines can be made viable for a couple of new years with just a new graphics card or RAM.  Others are so out of date that every single component is a huge bottleneck and upgrading any one thing will do little to improve the situation.

However there is also another factor to considder: Repurposing.  For example, I rebuilt my old PC, an Athlon 64 3200, into a Home Theater PC running XBMC.  It'll be doing 1080p playback of movies for at least another four years now.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 24, 2011)

My opinion is on the same grounds as Ashley's.  Whether or not you need to upgrade really depends on "why" you're upgrading.  If you're having problems playing the latest/greatest video games, then all you might need is a better video card (they do about 80% of the work).  Where you run into walls is when old architecture limits your upgrade options to the extent where it's a major hindrance.  Here are some examples of reasons to upgrade:

*1) You have a system that has an AGP port:* The fastest card made for the AGP port was the Radeon HD3850, which is already a far cry from the current line up.  Worse still, the 3850 was never supposed to exist.  AMD officially stopped supporting AGP after the 2900 series, so the drivers are special "hotfixes" which aren't supported.  All that said, if you have an AGP port, this is a really good example of a severe limitation that warrants upgrading the PC (or at least the core of the PC).

*2) Old CPU architecture:* A system that uses pretty dated CPUs.  For example, a Pentium IV system that does not support dual core CPUs.  Most applications and games are now optimized for multi-core processors.  Having a single core is now becoming a limitation.  If the motherboard cannot support a dual core, or only supports very old dual cores, then it's worth replacing to get into the modern CPUs.

*3) RAM limitations:* If the system's board cannot support above a certain amount of RAM, this can be a real limitation.  Some older motherboards had limits of 2, 3 or 4 gigs of RAM.  While 4 gigs is still plenty to get you by on, you should be able to put more than that into the system in case you want to expand, and you should definitely be able to go past 2 gigs.  Old RAM is another limitation - if the system uses DDR RAM instead of DDR2 or DDR3, then you'll be paying a real premium for the stuff, have less choices in high-capacity sticks, and get less performance in the end for your troubles. 

*4) Capacity issues:* If the older system has all it's on-board drive ports filled up, all the on-board USB filled up, and you're having to add in SATA and USB cards to get the capacity you need, that can sometimes be another indicator that it's time to retire it and move up to a system that has that sort of capacity built in natively.  

*5) Processing Speed concerns:* This one is more subjective.  Processing speed and whether or not it's adequate comes down to personal preference and what you're doing with the system.  Games aside, nearly every application commonly used on a computer does not require huge processing power.  A 7 year old Pentium IV with a moderate video card from that era can easily do any video, flash and media that you'd encounter on or off-line today.  Where the processor power comes into play is specific applications.  Games push it a bit more than normal stuff, but even that can vary greatly from game to game depending on how much is off-loaded to the GPU.  Other high-processing power applications like Photoshop, video editors, DVD-rippers and 3D renderers are the ones that will push the CPU.  It basically boils down to what you do with the system - if you spend a great deal of time in Photoshop touching up images and hate waiting, then maybe it's best to upgrade to a faster CPU.  Like I said, this one's very subjective.  The only fur sure thing goes back to point #2 - the CPU should be multi-core.

As for what to do with the previous system if you do upgrade, well again, as Ashley pointed out, you can use it for a variety of other tasks.  You can also give it to friends or family who need another system, keep it as a spare, or sell it.  If you do opt to sell it, just bare in mind you will not get very much for it.  PCs are SO common now, that the selling prices are peanuts compared to what you originally paid for it.  Look through the adds to get an idea of what similar hardware is going for, and set you price in there.


----------



## Runefox (May 24, 2011)

Repair: If parts are still available on the shelf.

Upgrade: If parts are not still available on the shelf and the system is damaged or not performing.

Replace: System is ancient (P3/P4) and/or destroyed (most eMachines).

Really, it depends on whether or not the system works for the purpose and what shape the hardware is in. Even a musty old P3 will work if it's just being used as a point of sale unit or some other menial task (I was using one as a router until recently), but for some people, not even a Core 2 is enough. Really, it depends on what the task is.

As for what to do with a broken computer that's old? Strip it bare. If it needed repairs to begin with and the point behind replacing it is to prevent wasting money on patching a sinking ship, then you're probably not going to find many other uses for it as it is.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 24, 2011)

ToeClaws said:


> As for what to do with the previous system if you do upgrade, well again, as Ashley pointed out, you can use it for a variety of other tasks.


 
Even repurposing can have it's costs as well though.  For my HTPC, I had to get an AGP Radeon HD 4650 to allow it to do hardware video decoding, it wouldn't do 1080p without that and it also give the system HDMI outputs.  The AGP versions of the 4650 sells for almost twice that of the PCI-E version.  Then a 4 port SATA1 card to allow it to interface with SATA HDDs.  I cheaped out and got a SATA1 card, but it's not like you need that much bandwidth to view a 1080p movie.  If I go beyond 4 HDDs, which is likely over the course of four years, I'll have to get one or two more controller cards.  And of course a Windows Media Center remote to let me control the thing like you would control any other media appliance.  I'm even debating later getting a Bluetooth mini keyboard/w touch pad to let me better use the YouTube plugins and search functions, that'd be another $50 at least.  However I still spent less than you would to build a new HTPC (At least, a new one capable housing 10 hard drives).

Another repurposing option would be a Network Attached Storage.  You see those little expensive 2 drive NAS rigs in retail stores, and you could easily repurpose any single core box into NAS.  (Technicly, mine is, but it doesn't specialize in it).  They make dedicated NAS operating systems like FreeNAS and OpenNAS and others, it'd let you setup a NAS box for a lot less money than those dedicated machines and it'd offer greater expandability,


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 25, 2011)

I don't really like working from stone-carved rules. I think it varies with what you want, and you have to plan accordingly.

I usually make a habit of completely redoing a build every 3-4 years or so, with about 1-2 major upgrades in between each one. Usually, it gets to the point where I would need a new mobo for everything, and then I just go from there.


----------



## net-cat (May 27, 2011)

I don't think I've "replaced" a computer in years. My desktop is a frankenputer that's been through all manner of parts, cases and configurations. Generally speaking, I consider it "replaced" when I change the motherboard, RAM and CPU. But those don't all necessarily happen at the same time.

Laptops are a different story. Basically the only part of my current laptop that isn't maxed out is the hard drive. Despite the fact that I'll have had it for five years, it still works fine and does 95% of what I want it to do and 100% of what I need it to do. I will probably replace it when the battery dies completely.


----------



## mbwolverine (May 27, 2011)

I tend to replace only a failed disk drive. Other than that, it is rarely worth my time to diagnose a malfunctioning machine. If it is out of warranty, it is probably ready for replacement, if only because newer systems a so much more energy efficient. You might almost save the cost in decreased power usage.


----------



## Xenke (May 27, 2011)

Depends.

For example, next time I need to upgrade, I'm seriously going to contemplate starting over again, since my case, motherboard, and graphics card have taken damage, as well as some light light light damage to my CPU. The case isn't worth keeping, since it's all wonky, and the motherboard isn't really worth it since it's going to be a bitch to get out and it's damaged. The graphic card may very well be alright, but chances are that'll be one of the main things that need replacing in time, so again, not worth it.

I dunno, my general rule of thumb is that it's time for a new system if you need to change out CPU and/or motherboard. That's probably just me though.


----------

