I've known for over a year that my old Mac Mini, bought in 2011, was on its last legs. I'd been having more and more trouble as the years went by with software freezing and crashing, and this year it finally reached a point where a program I needed for work was so slow to use that I was probably wasting an hour out of each workday just waiting for documents to load. I'd already upgraded this machine to the limit of its capacity, so the only option left was to replace it. The question was, what with?
One thing I knew for sure was that I wasn't going to buy another Mac. I'd been a loyal Apple user for over 30 years, but of late, Apple seems to have practically lost interest in making computers; the company has discovered that the real money is in making phones and other gadgets that people can be persuaded to replace every year. And to the extent that it still makes computers, it seems to want to use the same business model with those, forcing users to replace their computers and/or software as often as possible. It's no longer even trying to maintain back-compatibility, so each time a new version of the OS comes out, software that ran on the last version becomes unusable. And with each new model, it offers newer, faster, "better" interfaces and ditches the old ones that many users are still relying on. This was already a problem when I bought this Mac ten years ago, and I found that the new Mac Minis not only lacked a CD drive — on the grounds that CD technology was obsolete, which is questionable even now and certainly wasn't true then — but the latest version of MacOS, called Lion, broke all my software (and there was no way to "downgrade" the system to an older version). At the time, I dealt with these problems by returning the new Mac and buying a year-old one that still had a CD drive and was running the previous OS. But there would be no getting around them now.
So, with Apple off the table, I was pretty much constrained to buy a Windows machine. (A Chrome or Linux box might actually be able to run all the software I needed to use for work, but not the Filemaker program I need for my volunteer job.) But Windows machines come in many types and sizes: laptops, full-size PCs, mini PCs, all-in-ones. To meet my needs as ecofrugally as possible, I wanted one I could keep using for as long as possible: one that would be not only adequate but ample for everything I currently need it to do, and that could be upgraded easily in future to keep it running for at least ten years (like my old Mac and the one before it).
I ruled out the idea of an all-in-one right away, since having the monitor and the CPU in one unit means that if either one fails, the whole thing fails. Besides, there's no point in paying extra for a machine with a built-in monitor when I already have a perfectly good one. I didn't give serious consideration to a full-size PC, either. They're the easiest type of machine to upgrade, but also the most power-hungry, and it's pretty much impossible to take one with you on a trip — something I normally need to do once a year so that I can keep up with my volunteer job (which requires special software) during our Christmas vacation.
The idea of a laptop was somewhat tempting, as it would be nice to have the option of working outside on a beautiful, sunny day instead of being stuck in my home office. However, I had to admit that I wouldn't really get that much benefit from portability. I never travel for work, and the one time a year (in normal years) that I need to take a computer on vacation, I have everything I need to hook up a PC to waiting at the journey's end. And given that laptops cost more for the same amount of computing power, have wussy keyboards and trackpads instead of mice, are easier to damage, and are harder to upgrade, it seemed clear they weren't a truly ecofrugal choice.
So it seemed clear that I'd get the most bang for my buck with a mini PC like the one I was replacing. The Wirecutter report on this type of computer confirmed that "they’re more than powerful enough for web browsing, basic photo and video editing, and working in documents or large spreadsheets." The only task they can't really handle is high-end gaming, which I never do anyway. And while their small size "prevents much expansion," you can at least upgrade the memory and storage, and sometimes even the processor.
At that point, it was just a question of finding the right model. The Wirecutter report recommended several models, three of which ran on Windows. Of the three, the "for DIYers" pick — a build-your-own Intel NUC — clearly offered the best bang for the buck. For roughly the same $700 I'd paid for my old Mac, we could put together a complete system with "twice as much memory and storage as in the preconfigured systems we recommend," plus a copy of Microsoft Office thrown in. It would take a little more work to get it up and running, but nothing Brian's mad tech skills couldn't handle. And it would be even smaller and easier to transport on vacation than my old Mac.
But on the plus side, I'm no longer wasting an hour a day on stuck computer processes. And if all goes well, this new computer should serve me another ten years, by which time I hope I'll either get used to it or figure out how to change the things I don't like.
No comments:
Post a Comment