“Future-Proofing” is a dangerous concept.

[Ifti]

No - an example is - "I edit 4K video with the following codecs. Here's a machine that comfortably does so and will for another 5 or so years. I don't need to buy a machine that can handle 6K when it comes out because in 5 years time there will be machines to comfortably do so for a cheaper price"

That's assuming you have no newer software requirements.
Hardware that can edit 4k now will be able to do so in the future. But chances are the software used to edit that 4k video will be updated and change over that 5 years. As software changes it takes advantage of newer hardware architecture etc. This is what makes hardware seem slower over time. Just software that's more demanding of hardware. So by 'future-proofing' you are making your machine last longer as it will be able to keep up with software developments for a longer period of time then a lower spec machine.

I'm not trying to argue here. That's just my opinion. Whether people want to overspend and overkill their machines according to their budget is entirely their choice. If someone has the money to do it and is happy with their purchase, what does it matter?

 

[ruslan120]

Completely agreed that it's up to the individual - I'm not implying that there should be a rule or anything forbidding people from buying over-specd hardware

I see a lot of threads where users ask for advice so I wanted to share my opinion on that topic and start a discussion to see where it goes / what MacRumors thinks.

I'm not trying to argue here.

Ditto. Nice to have a normal discussion. I don't see reason to get upset over normal talking points (but see it too often so I get where this is coming from and ty)

 

[compwiz1202]

That's assuming you have no newer software requirements.
Hardware that can edit 4k now will be able to do so in the future. But chances are the software used to edit that 4k video will be updated and change over that 5 years. As software changes it takes advantage of newer hardware architecture etc. This is what makes hardware seem slower over time. Just software that's more demanding of hardware. So by 'future-proofing' you are making your machine last longer as it will be able to keep up with software developments for a longer period of time then a lower spec machine.

I'm not trying to argue here. That's just my opinion. Whether people want to overspend and overkill their machines according to their budget is entirely their choice. If someone has the money to do it and is happy with their purchase, what does it matter?

Yes this has been the endless cycle of tech since I was a kid. New hardware comes out and crushes any existing software. Then software is developed until they can't do anything else with the current hardware. New hardware is created...

 

[Gutwrench]

I’ve approached the age where buying premium priced products for their lifetime warranty is not a selling point.

 

[cardfan]

By 'future-proofing' and purchasing a higher spec then you actually need, not only are you ensuring your new computer will fit your needs several years down the line so will last longer, but if you decide to sell then it will be valued higher also - more to put towards another overkilled machine! lol

Just means you’re doing what Apple wants you to do. Don’t forget the Apple care plus. And see ya next year.

 

[Ifti]

Just means you’re doing what Apple wants you to do. Don’t forget the Apple care plus. And see ya next year.

Yup, got my AppleCare+ and am 100% happy with my purchase. That's what counts.

 

[daimos]

In the future, when you need a gadget, they will be available in stores. No need to future-proof.

 

[velocityg4]

I think it has to do with the degree of future proofing and diminishing returns. If spending an extra 25% will get you an extra 50% useful life. It is worth it. Spending an extra 100% for a 50% increase in useful life is not.

There's other factors to consider. Such as upgradeability. When a part is upgradeable. It often makes more sense to wait until you need the upgrade. As that upgrade will likely cost less when you do need it.

 

[avz]

I believe technological timeline does not have that many "important game-changing moments".
For instance early 2008 MacBook seems so close to the late 2008 unibody MacBook and yet so far, far away. Clearly something important did happen in late 2008. Now, 12 years later I can still use my late 2008 MacBook for all simple consumer tasks(even watch 4k video with some stuttering and install the latest macOS). I guess it is much harder for professionals than it is for consumers.

 

[velocityg4]

I believe technological timeline does not have that many "important game-changing moments".
For instance early 2008 MacBook seems so close to the late 2008 unibody MacBook and yet so far, far away. Clearly something important did happen in late 2008. Now, 12 years later I can still use my late 2008 MacBook for all simple consumer tasks(even watch 4k video with some stuttering and install the latest macOS). I guess it is much harder for professionals than it is for consumers.

For heavy compute work of some media professionals and other compute heavy users. There really is no such thing as a fast computer. They just have to get the fastest computer on the market available and their budget allows. Then make do with it's limitations.

For the average user. Today's CPU are much more powerful than they have use for. RAM and storage space usually become a problem before the CPU does. For myself it's just the last year I've been noticing the limitations of a Core 2 Quad for daily tasks. My i5-3570K still flies. I still don't hit 100% usage so can't justify replacing it. My first gen i7 and 2nd gen i5 also do quite well. My 2010 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro with SSD is feeling a bit slow but it still does fine for it's meager duties of e-Mail, web browsing and network testing.

 

[dukebound85]

Total spending might be the same. But in one case you use twice as much ressources.

This is how you **** up a planet !
[automerge]1580986160[/automerge]
Mostly i disagree.

How is it bad to buy something more powerful (or more repairable / upgradable) when it means manufacturing one piece of equipment instead of 2,3 or 4 ?

Is it better to bury Earth under cheap, disposable crap?

except even in option 1, those people are looking to get a new machine at around the 4year mark anyways

 

[LizKat]

To me, "future proofing" is making sure you have backups of your old hardware so that when the software makers go and do something stupid, I can keep things running long enough to find an alternative.

That is exactly what I always did once I started seeing assorted proprietary data formats showing up and realized I could maybe resist those apps on my own account but not when they started showing up in work projects and I was already mostly telecommuting. Ugh. I could get company hardware and software upgrades for the machine in my cube in the city, but my at-home gear and any app workarounds were my problem. I had two of whatever laptop I was using, usually, except for the year or so timeframe when I'd switch up to one newer laptop; kept the other old one until sure I was ready to move up from that one too.

 

[lowendlinux]

I care about future proofing in my desktop computers but portables are disposable so I try to spend as little money as possible.

In the context of Apple the laptop on a stick seems like a bad call, the MBA in box is better, and obviously the MP is the best.

 

[LizKat]

I care about future proofing in my desktop computers but portables are disposable so I try to spend as little money as possible.

In the context of Apple the laptop on a stick seems like a bad call, the MBA in box is better, and obviously the MP is the best.

Still, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I haven't looked at a desktop machine for personal use since I first realized I could make the data follow me instead my having to follow the darn data.

Additional major advantage of laptops for me is that power outages don't matter so much in areas of the USA where electricity is still delivered over above-ground cables... subject to trees falling on wires and vehicles hitting utility poles.

 

[A.Goldberg]

My parents built a house in 2000/2001. The house was wired extensively not only with Ethernet, but also fiber with the expectation that fiber would be the future of home networking. Of course, several years later WiFi was the clear standard.

I have no idea how much they spent on fiber, it’s remains quite costly today. I can’t imagine it will ever be utilized.

 

[velocityg4]

My parents built a house in 2000/2001. The house was wired extensively not only with Ethernet, but also fiber with the expectation that fiber would be the future of home networking. Of course, several years later WiFi was the clear standard.

I have no idea how much they spent on fiber, it’s remains quite costly today. I can’t imagine it will ever be utilized.

If they ever want a home file server with a 40 to 100 Gbps connection. They're covered.

 

[sracer]

The term "future-proofing" is used by people who are trying to justify the money they spent above what they would otherwise spend for a prudent purchase.

Apple encourages that by instilling "fear" in customers. Fear that they'll run out of storage (which causes them to buy higher tier storage options that are overpriced). And by having high pricing for out-of-warranty repair and replacement, they cause customers to be fearful of exorbitant costs due to accidents and they buy AppleCare. Apple has even been able to increase that revenue stream further by reducing the quality of components which helps customers justify AppleCare (rather than pursue the purchase of a higher quality device that doesn't need an extended warranty).

 

[A.Goldberg]

If they ever want a home file server with a 40 to 100 Gbps connection. They're covered.

I suppose haha. My parents are in their mid 60’s and not really tech people, so I don’t think that will be happening.

The funny thing is that all the full bathrooms have Ethernet jacks, in addition to phone jack (I guess it might make sense if they ever used a VOIP phone system). I don’t think they’re active/plugged into the network switch... but it does create the opportunity to joke about installing a server in the bathroom Hillary Clinton style.

Being over-wired with Ethernet wasn’t a bad idea though. Their house is rather large at 5800+ square feet. A couple years ago I upgraded their WiFi (2 ancient Linksys WRT54G routers) to a Ubiquity UniFi access points, router, etc. The DOCSIS 2.0 modem was quite a bottleneck with a 38mbps max bandwidth. Having Ethernet prewired including extra lines made it incredibly easy.