I agree what testing on crappy hardware is a good thing BUT........... I think the industry has a problem selling underpowered computers in general. AFAIK it's

I agree what testing on crappy hardware is a good thing BUT........... I think the industry has a problem selling underpowered computers in general. AFAIK it's the non-pros that need the a reasonably powerful computer. Maybe "powerful" is the wrong word but not the crappy $300 windows laptop running on a celeron or whatever the latest. My dad got some ~$500 HP all in one desktop and it's so underpowered as to be unusable. It takes 4-5 minutes to boot while and launching any app takes what feels like half a minute. Just typing you can feel the machine struggle. You could argue if all software (and the OS) was optimized it might not be underpowered but there is no world where all software is optimized. It see a similar problem all the time with people giving up an old computer. My friend had some like 2007 Mac and she was thinking of giving it to a friend for their kids. Maybe some hacker kid would find a use for it but for most non-geeks, an old PC won't run current software, the current OS, current browsers with vulnerabilities fixed or modern standards. Zoom, youtube, etc are probably not going to be good experiences on such a machine. Basically it's my opinion that non-techies should always get a relatively new and reasonably powered machine but sadly they don't have the knowledge to know that so they get led to a crappy underpowered machine and then have a crappy and frustrating experience using it. I don't have a solution. It's only an observation. In my own family, when they let me buy them a machine, on a scale of 1 to 10 I aim for ~7 in terms of power with say 8-16gig of ram and a reasonably powered processor, at least an i5? not an i3 or N or Celeron.