I don't see a reason to invest in a laptop if 90% of the time you work in the same place. For the other 10% - buy a cheap laptop.
However the solution that I have chosen for travelling, when that is necessary, is different.
For my work, I need a large number of peripheral ports, as many Thunderbolt, USB Ethernet ports as possible and enough ports for multiple monitors. I also need at least 64 GB of DRAM, which excludes a very large number of the current laptop models, especially among the AMD models, which cannot be configured with so much memory.
Also, after becoming older, I strongly prefer a larger display, so I would want a laptop with a 17" display.
While there are a lot of laptop models that match my requirements, they are also very expensive and quite heavy.
I have realized that I can get all the features that I want at a much lower price and even at a lower weight, by using an Intel NUC or similar computer, together with a portable 17" monitor and a compact keyboard for the occasions when I have to carry it.
Even when I have used laptops, I have never used them on my lap or in any place where there was no power plug, so their advantages for such uses do not matter for me.
Besides the lower price and weight, the NUC solution also has the advantage of a better performance than most laptops using the same CPU, due to a better cooler that allows a high steady-state power dissipation without thermal throttling (e.g. in the current Wall Street Canyon Intel NUCs, the Alder Lake P CPUs with a nominal TDP of 28 W are configured to dissipate 35 W for an indefinite time, while many thin laptops with Alder Lake P cannot dissipate even 28 W without throttling).
When you have monitors at the destination, e.g. when commuting between home and office, it is much easier to carry in the backpack or in the briefcase a NUC than a laptop. A NUC-like computer weighs much less than 1 kg, typically between 0.3 kg and 0.5 kg.
Even if you go e.g. in a business trip and you carry with you a portable 17" inch monitor (weight around 1 kg) and a compact keyboard, the weight is less than that of an equivalent 17" mobile workstation, which weighs between 2.5 kg and 3.5 kg.
So yes, a NUC is much easier to carry than a large laptop, and when you already have a monitor at the destination it is much easier to carry than the thinnest and lightest ultrabook.
I have carried NUCs daily to the office for years, because it was much more convenient than carrying the laptop, but previously I have not also used them for most business trips, because I did not have a portable monitor.
A NUC can be also battery-powered like a laptop, e.g. by using a laptop charger from Anker or similar, but I have needed this very seldom.
Of course to each its own and is perfect that this solution works for you. But suggesting that is a lighter alternative to a real, modern laptop is incorrect. As it is the article that seems to advocate using obsolete browsers, obsolete editors and no modern software for the sake of saving money or the World.
The truth is that whomever depends on a computer for paid work needs performance. New processors (like the apple M1) are much faster than a 6-7 years old laptop. And, if the green cause is important, much more efficient energy management and longer battery life.
If you need power and quality (think images/video editing) you can't work with software and hardware of a decade (of two decades ago).
While the embedded energy cost in new devices is noteworthy, I've run through the causes and consequences, and we still have a rationale to keep pushing up performance and energy at hardware level before trying to gut features.
And once you get on that treadmill, you're generally stuck buying at the same price points because when you go downmarket, the manufacturers will remove I/O and BIOS settings, solder the flash drive, etc.
That said, buying slightly old(even refurbished with no wear) is a great savings and I always tend to opt towards that for computers.
You're aware of the treadmill. Hack it.
I'm sure someone will oblige by linking to the xkcd comic playing games 20 years behind everyone else.
I guess you cannot call it a 'luggable' like in days of yore, since it is not heavy, but I wonder if there's a snazzy term for a portable headless computer...
And a NUC is great when I visit my parents for two weeks but want to keep working remotely. That way I don't have to disassemble my gaming setup (thinking of cable management), or worry that something happens to the PC. It's still a great remote working experience, and cheaper than a capable laptop.
I see the appeal in both. But to be honest, I'm not in need for a high end machine for my work, nor hobbies, so I just use a work laptop for work, and spin up gitpod for my own stuff, which a chromebook could run.
I find this type of advice (change your laptop only every 10 years to save the world) irresponsible to say the least.
Imagine visiting a medical doctor with obsolte X-Ray technology, lab analysis tools etc. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that regardless of the money they saved or the illusionary "save the world" green footprint.
Of course none of this matter if one doesn't require the latest technology or software (e.g. Adobe etc.).
I don't understand this one. My laptop was born with Ubuntu 14.04 (actually it came with Windows 7, I formatted it with Linux out of the box) and software still runs and I'm still getting security updates. I'm on Ubuntu 20.04 now. Would it be different if I was on Windows? I think I would be on Windows 10 now.
The only problems I could think about are: software needs some new graphic card or more memory that could fit into the laptop. Add the lack of spare parts, but this is another kind of failure.
Getting things approved as a medical device, and then updating the software, operating system, etc.. for it is a huge pain in the ass.
I know that wasn't the point, but just wanted to mention it.
It really sounds like we need to bring back the term "luggable"
> In the 1990's the Ergo Brick achieved significant acclaim due to its unique design. Before powerful notebook computers came along, Ergo defined the category "transportable computer" with grace and power. You used a Brick if you wanted portable horsepower (in contrast with wimpy early notebooks).
If I need the big screen, or keyboard I just “dock” it to a USB-C monitor.
Invest in a laptop? With the current prices pretty much everyone that uses a computer professionally can afford a laptop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32614135
https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/#readme
> running and unlocking features in macOS on supported and unsupported Macs
Most of the Apple hardware bought for me has been by employers who understood I wasn't going to use Apple software. In the big scheme of things, it is better to have a reduced set of drivers and pay a bit more than have an employee fiddling on drivers because Acer skimmed another $1 off their motherboard cost.
But sure, you don't need icloud if you got your photos on DVD right ?
My 2011 desktop has a 3.5GHz 4-core i7 processor, 32GB of RAM and of a 1TB SSD.
In the interim there's been the adoption of USB-C, improvements in energy efficiency and widespread 4K display support - but raw performance numbers aren't much changed. Go to Dell with $2000 and with the laptop performance penalty they'll offer you... pretty much the same specs, except the CPU will have some extra 'efficiency' cpu cores and be called '11th generation' instead of '2nd generation'.
Are you perhaps thinking of some previous decade, where 10 years meant 20x the clockspeed and 2x the cores?
If all developers have the latest and greatest computers, the software works great for them, meanwhile the plebs are forced to upgrade to keep up.
Maybe developers should have to use an older computer if only to check usability for everyone else.