>* My 10 year old computer is doing real time transcoding in 2018.* Yes, I got that point. And I'm saying 10 year old computers in 2008 were doing transcoding

>* My 10 year old computer is doing real time transcoding in 2018.* Yes, I got that point. And I'm saying 10 year old computers in 2008 were doing transcoding as well - just with standard definition streams rather than HD (the "HD" part seemed important to you but I was making the point that you're not doing 4k transcoding in 2018 with your 10 year old PC so why fixate on HD recording in 2008 when HD was just as new as 4k is today) >* Again. That's the point. My 10 year old computer is running the current latest OS in 2018. A 10 year old computer in 2008 couldn't run the latest OS.* Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough because this is the 3rd time I've now had to say that I've used 10 year old computers both in 2008 and in 1998 - all of which were running the latest OS. Like I said, in 1995 I was still supporting Windows 3.x on a 286s. > My major point being that in the first few facades of PCs, technology was moving so fast that to run the latest software, you had to upgrade your computer more frequently. Now, a 10 year old computer can run the latest software. And I'm saying that is bullshit. I have first hand experience - originally as an owner and a support engineer; and then as a developer and systems administrator - with examples over the last 20 years that directly disprove your point. Examples I've repeatedly cited. Frankly if I've seen any trend it's people replacing hardware quicker now that laptops have gotten so cheap - which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. > The smart watch and the phone to a lesser extent is still seeing the type of rapid improvements that you saw in computers until 10 years ago. I've repeatedly demonstrated that your argument about rapid developments in the PC landscape is completely baseless and given numerous examples why. >An electronic watch from 10 years ago can't do everything a modern smart watch can. A 10 year old computer can. Again you're comparing apples to oranges. A watch is not a PC. Hell why don't we just compare it to cars and have the same meaningless discussion: a digital watch is like a small hatchback and a smartwatch is like a campervan. What we've now proved is that smartwatches have running water....oh wait. > As far as the actual usage. A modern smart watch is used for a lot of things that a 10 year old watch wasn't. That is literally the only accurate thing you've posted. The real question is whether the other stuff is enough to make people want to upgrade their watches (as well as their phones) every two years. I don't think it is. I think those kind of people are the exception and most people wouldn't want their smartwatch to become obsolete so quickly. I think most people see their smartwatch as a digital watch on steroids rather than a PC. And thus I think most people's expectations would be for their watch to outlast their phone. At risk of repeating myself (but let's be honest, you've missed the other points I made on 2 separate occasions) the hardware is irrelevant to most people. Most people aren't techy. Most people will look at a smartwatch and see "something-watch" not "computer-something" like you and I.