First, an excellent advisory: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/50774/index.html.
However, still bearing the clear-cut implications of said advisory in mind, we clarify the intent of this thread to address a more specific angle of attack: "new" to buyer.
This thread is for those of us who are tired of engineered obsolescence, who understand that no real innovations have occurred in the computer world since Y2K ( WHAT?!? Yes.), and who would intuitively go for the '72 Firebird instead of the 2016 whatever.
Assertion 1)
If you aren't tired of engineered obsolescence then never mind, go buy whatever. You deserve what you get.
Assertion 2)
Computers do word processing, spreadsheets, data-basing, graphics manipulation, and remote communication. That's what they did in '85, that's what they do now, albeit better.
Increases in CPU speed, RAM, and data storage are NOT innovations, they are mainly an excuse for the OS and new programs to suck those resources down so that the average user will buy upgrades, fixes, and new machines when their "old" one slows to a crawl.
Assertion 3)
A significant percentage of vehicles manufactured in the '40s-'70s are still on the road, doing what they were designed to do; many of them will continue doing so when the vast majority of the later models are scrap.
This could have been posted from my 20-year old 486 w/66Mg HD and 8 Mg of RAM; in truth, it is being posted from a 2002 Pentium D2 with nearly a whole gig of RAM, wherein resides Linux Puppy. (That's right, Puppy loads itself into less than a half-gig of RAM, providing all of the aforementioned basic computer functions while running like a scalded ape.)
THE POINT of this rather lengthy (apologies to all) diatribe? Buying an older computer ("new" to the buyer) may be a move vastly superior to spending 10-to-100-times the money on the latest greatest. In either case, the user is going to have to contend with the horrendous mess we've made of program and hardware functionality and compatibility, not to mention the internet. Why not do it at a fraction of the cost?
---------------------------
Having said all that, I herewith invite comments with regard to:
reliable, still-available computer models from days gone by,
older OS's and programs that serve the purpose on those older computers, and
workarounds for meshing the old OS/programs with the modern morass-at-large.
A daunting task, but I have come to believe that the motley crew of LQ will rise and shine in stellar fashion. Have at it!

My father was a tool and die maker. He worked with old German tool makers for 51 years until he retired. In the 60's he somehow got a book about Bentley's. He said they were made to last. Each part in the car was made substantial and over the need of common use. This contrasted with his work. He would get (for example) a series of designs for a bumper from a car company. Each would be different by the thickness of metal. My Dad would create the die's and make the test bumpers and send them back. The car company would test each one to find the very minimal amount they'd need to sell the car. My Dad hated that, the cheapest part. I asked him why then didn't he buy the Bentley?

first of all, that article itself is 11 years old.
just saying.

built-in obsoletion and low-grade quality hardware is not a new thing. i find it rather arbitrary to draw the line at the 70s for cars, or at y2k for computers.
that sounds more like personal nostalgia to me.

my experience with computer hardware is that it lasts longer than what it's designed for.
i mean, the 10 year old computer shows no sign of material fatigue, but the fast-moving computer world has long since moved on.
machines are being thrown away for other reasons.

of course, manufacturers have caught on and are trying to build in obsolescence in other ways, e.g. by making it impossible to add more RAM, or by making the whole machine and operating system so opaque that you are at the mercy of the operating system providers (meaning, if your android phone starts acting up, what can you really do about it?).
ah well, don't get me started on the hardware quality of phones (or maybe netbooks/tablets, too? i have not much experience there).

but, building your own machine or buying a standard desktop, i see no reason to buy some sort of "better" components (a la bentley).

examples:
- my current desktop case, keyboard and monitor have long outlived their heyday, but work just fine, and there's no end in sight.
- the only reason i had to buy a new mobo was because there was a loose screw lying on some circuits, shorting them out. in the process, i decided to buy a new processor and RAM as well, but the old stuff is still functional.
- same goes for my minilaptop. i had it with me on a 2-week cycling trip this summer. cool.

none of these are in any way "high-end" components. just the normal consumer stuff.

Thank you sir! Exactly excellent!
Your father was spoiled, to work with/for the Masters of Steel (sorry, Amerika) during their heyday. Nobody but the Swiss, who weren't into the heavy market, seemed to have their secrets and mastery of the processes, and their products set the benchmarks.
And yet, you say, even his company's (-ies') clients were more interested in shaving costs than providing the best quality. That is a sad commentary on the human condition.
Rolls Royce and Bentley speak for themselves. That's what I'm talking about.
Thank you.

[QUOTE=ondoho;5608129]first of all, that article itself is 11 years old.
just saying.
......./wiki/Built_in_obsolescence#History_and_origins_of_the_phrase"]is not a new thing[/URL].
i find it rather arbitrary to draw the line at the 70s for cars, or at y2k for computers.
that sounds more like personal nostalgia to me. <end QUOTE>

Ummmmm.... yes..... the concept and practice are probably as old as politics, prostitution, and bartering. WE, TODAY, CURRENT STATE-of-AFFAIRS are the issue at hand here.
"Arbitrary" ?? Are you arbitrarily labeling my nostalgia as "personal" ?
Actually, you are correct again, and I would welcome another fact-based perspective on that point... but hmmm, I don't see any in your post. But feel free to provide us with your own, albeit arbitrary, timeline. For now, based on my personal experience, I will maintain that the quality of vehicle engineering and construction took a downturn with the gas wars of the early '70s, and computers followed suit around Y2K.

<QUOTE>
my experience with computer hardware is that it lasts longer than what it's designed for.
i mean, the 10 year old computer shows no sign of material fatigue, but the fast-moving computer world has long since moved on.
machines are being thrown away for other reasons. <end QUOTE>
No argument on that first point. But they'll find a way. Age of Plastic.
I submit that the "fast-moving computer world" has moved on into a crap-quagmire. Per the thread-start, there is a
serious dearth of innovations in that world since the late 90s. Faster CPUs and terrabytes of storage are NOT
innovations, they are an excuse for devs to throw any regard for concise modular programming out the same WINDOW
as the concept of user-friendliness, the sole agenda being engineered obsolescence.

<QUOTE>
of course, manufacturers have caught on and are trying to build in obsolescence in other ways, e.g. by making it impossible to add more RAM, or by making the whole machine and operating system so opaque that you are at the mercy of the operating system providers...<end QUOTE>
Quite so.

<QUOTE>
but, building your own machine or buying a standard desktop, i see no reason to buy some sort of "better" components (a la bentley).
examples:
- my current desktop case, keyboard and monitor have long outlived their heyday, but work just fine, and there's no end in sight.
- the only reason i had to buy a new mobo was because there was a loose screw lying on some circuits, shorting them out. in the process, i decided to buy a new processor and RAM as well, but the old stuff is still functional.
- same goes for my minilaptop. i had it with me on a 2-week cycling trip this summer. cool.

none of these are in any way "high-end" components. just the normal consumer stuff.[/end QUOTE]

I keep thinking we're on the same page here, ondoho, but I also keep bumping up against statements like "i see no
reason to buy some sort of "better" components (a la bentley)"... what exactly is it that you have against QUALITY ?
(Not admitting it's probably the same as MY complaint, the bleedin' PRICE.)
I am a bit confused as to your actual position on the topic, but I agree with much of what you said. Thank you for your response, which obviously got me blathering on in response, which kinda makes for a THREAD, oui?

**** My version of Winblows runs 32 "processes" at start-up, sucking down over half of available RAM and drawing 40% of the commit charge. Whenever I reboot or fire her up, the first thing I do is whittle that down (via Task Manager) to 19 (critical) processes and, thereby, 10% commit charge. Comments? ************************