Sunday, 2 November 2025

Building a New PC in 2025: Windows 11 Cometh

Have a look at this:

It's a fourteen-year-old PC. I built it from parts back in 2011. Have you ever taken a photograph of your living room, and when you look at the picture everything is ugly and you can see all the dirt? I have the same feeling right now. My PC looks grotty on the outside, and it also looks pretty grotty on the inside, but for most of the last fourteen years it has been the tool of my writing trade.

Back in 2011 I wanted to leap into the world of 64-bit computing, so I bought a bunch of parts and stuffed them into a case. Goodbye 32-bit Windows XP and 4gb of memory and postage-stamp-sized videos of top internet porn legend Aria Giovanni, hello 64-bit Windows 7 Pro, 16gb, and full-screen 1080p videos of top internet porn legend Ana Foxxx, or Foxx, I'm not sure how many X's she has in her name.

Back in 2011 my PC had an Intel i5-2500K, which was an excellent CPU that remained relevant for years afterwards. At the time AMD was going through a bad patch and Intel was top dog. I replaced the 2500K in 2020 with an Intel Xeon E3-1275 V2, so I could eke a little bit more life out of the machine. As of today it runs Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 fast enough at 1080 that it's fun to play.

Foxxx. Three Xs.

During the 2010s I replaced the hard drive with an SSD, upgraded the graphics card to a middle-of-the-road Geforce GTX 1650, added some black tape to cover up the lack of blanking plates, and smeared some paint on the case because I had some spare paint.

I also upgraded Windows 7 to Windows 10, which was free. I had nothing against Windows 8 - it ran perfectly fine on my ThinkPad X61 - but it didn't make a lot of sense in a desktop machine. The result is a PC that would have been state of the art in 2013, roughly on the same level of performance as one of the cylindrical Mac Pro models.



It's still usable nowadays, but there's a problem. The 2011-era motherboard doesn't have the necessary security chip to run Windows 11, so the machine is forever stuck with Windows 10, and on 14 October 2025 Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 10:
 

It feels strange, downloading the last update of an operating system. I have a couple of old PowerPC Macintoshes that are forever stuck with OS X 10.5, and occasionally I power them up and check to see if there are any updates. There are none, although apparently there is a way to run an early build of OS X 10.6 on them.
 
There was a time when a fourteen-year-old PC would have been obsolete junk. The original IBM PC would have been fourteen years old in 1995. There may have been a few machines still running Lotus 123 and WordStar in offices here and there, but Duke Nukem 3D or Quake would have been beyond them. In the age of Unreal and Half-Life the 286, 386, and 486 would have been similarly adrift.

A fast original Pentium machine from 1995 would have been far behind the curve in 2009, which was the age of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and high-def video. But the pace of change slowed down in the multi-core age. A PC built in the early 2010s isn't all that old-fashioned. My fourteen-year-old PC is still perfectly capable of running modern games at modest settings. I reviewed The Talos Principle 2 and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 on this very machine, and had fun while doing so. I even started to review The Outer Worlds, which came out in 2019, but mid-way through I switched to my new PC.
 
Back in 2011 I chose 64-bit Windows 7 Pro because the Pro version had XP Mode, which was a virtual machine that ran XP. I never used it, but it might have been handy. I upgraded in place to Windows 10 Pro when it came out in 2015. Microsoft originally announced that Windows 10 would be the last version of Windows, and that in future they would continually update it, along the lines of Apple's MacOS. But the company obviously changed its mind, because in 2021 it released Windows 11, and in 2023 it announced the end of support for Windows 10 as of October 2025.
 

Which was awkward, because as of this writing - mid-October 2025 - Windows 10 is still installed on around 45% of PCs running Windows. Back when Windows XP was a thing Microsoft had to push back the retirement date because it was so popular - netbooks gave it a renewed lease of life - but this time the company has held up its hand and said "enough".

Ordinarily I would upgrade, but my Asrock H67M-GE motherboard is just too old. With no way to install Windows 11 my PC has suddenly reached the end. It still works, and will continue to work, but Windows 10 is the end.

Windows 7 Pro cost me £162 in 2011, and Windows 10 was a free upgrade, so for £11 a year I got to play XCOM: Enemy Within as much as I liked, which I suppose was worth it, but the forced obsolescence is still annoying, and yes I realise that Enemy Within was actually released in 2013, but humour me.

What are the options? Amazon has a bunch of tiny little mini PCs for around £160 that run Windows 11. They're based around the Intel N95 low-power CPU. They have roughly the same CPU performance as my aging, power-hungry Intel Xeon, which is humbling, but they're reliant on the N95's built-in graphics processor, which is less powerful than the discrete card in my PC. It strikes me that a mini PC would be a dead end. It'll be junk in fourteen years.

I could of course switch entirely to a Mac Mini, and the new M4 Minis are very tempting, but it would be nice to play XCOM: Enemy Within every now and again. So, new PC.

Intel or AMD? Over the years the two companies have tussled. The first PC I built myself had an Intel Celeron 300A, which could be overclocked to run as fast as a 450mhz Pentium II by putting sellotape on one of the pins. It was sweet! I used it throughout the Pentium II and III eras, but replaced it with an AMD Duron in the early 2000s, because the Pentium 4 was a poor deal. The Pentium 4 relied on expensive, proprietary RAMBUS memory and was less efficient than AMD's designs.

AMD was hot in the early 2000s. The modern 64-bit version of the x86 architecture was AMD's doing. For a while it seemed that AMD was The Future. But Intel came back in the mid-2000s with the Pentium M and Core Duo, and my next machine was an Intel Core II Duo, I forget the model. I upgraded it towards the end of its life. I replaced it with the i5-2500k mentioned above. AMD went through a terrible patch in the 2010s with its Bulldozer architecture, which was inefficient and power-hungry, but over time Intel lost its mojo and AMD rose again in 2011 with Ryzen.

As of 2025 AMD is the internet favourite, and their chips tend to be slightly better value, but ironically their popularity is such that I couldn't find a good motherboard at a cheap price, so I picked Intel.

 
The general process of building a PC hasn't changed much since 2011. The main difference is the normalisation of SSDs. In 2011 they were exotic. Then they were super-fast boot drives. Then M2 came along and SSDs became tiny. Now it's entirely feasible to have an all-SSD system. Otherwise SATA, PCI, the general concept of RAM sticks, the CPU mounts, are all at least conceptually the same. I settled on the following system:
 
- Intel i5-12600K CPU
- MSI H610M-E motherboard
- Crucial P310 M2 1TB SSD
- Corsair RM750x PSU, which is ludicrously overspecified but was cheap
- 16gb Silicon Power DD4
- Cooler Master Hyper 411 heatsink
- iONZ KZ19 Spin case

This came to a total cost of £461.40. Looking back through my old emails, that's about £50 cheaper than the i5-2500K machine I built in 2011. The new machine has twice the memory, four times the CPU power, and an SSD that has the same capacity but is much faster.
 
Here's the case:


It has a bunch of built-in fans. Thankfully no coloured lights. My plan was to set up the machine with the CPU's integral graphics, and then think about a graphics card later. I like a big empty case with lots of airflow. Could I have saved a bit of money? I could have reused my existing Corsair RM550x PSU (-£109.99), picked a cheaper CPU (-£50 or so), and settled for a 500GB SSD (-£10) for around £290 in total. That's not much more than a pre-built mini PC.
 
Assembling the components was easy, although I hit a stumbling block early on with the M2 SSD. M2 drives have to be screwed into place, otherwise they flip up, but it took me an age to find the tiny tiny standoff screw. After that the process was M2 SSD, RAM sticks, CPU, CPU cooler in that order.
 


Then there was the rigmarole of fitting this into the case, and connecting up the power and reset switches. In the following image the back of the PC is towards the right, and the PSU fits into the basement section, sucking air in through the back and ejecting it downwards onto the table.
 
 
Physical hard drives also go in the basement, but on the left. The case has screw mounts for SSDs underneath the motherboard, either screwed into the back of the machine, or mounted in a little bracket, viz:
 

It wasn't long before it was all assembled. The same case is also available with a wraparound mesh cover. In retrospect I have no idea why I picked glass. Was it slightly cheaper? I can't remember.
 

Then, the moment of truth. I turned it on, then held down DEL to enter the bios and check out the temperatures, which were nice and low:
 

Bear in mind that my regular PC is a 2012 Mac Mini, which runs normally at around 50 degrees centigrade, up to 60-70 when playing video.
 
I then installed Ubuntu, just to see if it all worked, and also to check out the temperatures while running, which again were fine:
 

There was one curious thing, though. It froze. As in, completely locked up, out of the blue. Frozen mouse cursor, no response. Linux doesn't usually crash that badly.
 
At this point I'll share something with you. There appears to be a CPU shortage, so I picked a used i5-12600K from Amazon's warehouse. CPUs don't break, do they? They're sealed up. In all the years I've been tinkering with PCs, the only outright hardware failures I've had were a hard drive and a motherboard. Ubuntu freezing up must have been a one-off glitch.
 
With the PC assembled I bought a physical copy of Windows 11. On the one hand Microsoft's decision to give up on Windows 10 is annoying, but on the other hand I like Microsoft Flight Simulator, so there is that. Microsoft has treated me badly, but perhaps I can change Microsoft.
 
 
Windows 11 Professional has a bunch of enterprise management tools but otherwise doesn't have a compelling raison d'etre for a home user, so I picked Windows 10 Home. It comes on a USB stick, which is fair enough given that my new PC doesn't even have an optical drive, but no amount of packaging will ever make USB sticks feel like a premium product. There is apparently an DVD version, but it's only available for companies, not individuals.
 
Installation was a breeze - until it wasn't:
 

To my surprise Windows bluescreened during the installation process. Then recovered, then bluescreened again. Each time with a different error message. IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL. Something about memory management. Something about the kernel. Something about drivers. With persistence I managed to install Windows 11, but connecting to the internet and downloading the service pack caused it to bluescreen again and again. I could reach the desktop, but it was flaky.
 
There followed a frustrating weekend. I swapped PSUs, to no avail. It appeared that both PSUs were fine. I ran Memtest86, but the RAM passed. The SSD appeared to be a-ok. I tried installing Windows 11 with a discrete graphics card, but it still froze. I installed Windows 10 and got as far as playing XCOM: Enemy Within, but after a while it froze. I updated the motherboard firmware and BIOS, then tried running the memory at a lower clock speed, but it froze, each time with a new bluescreen code. I downloaded the Windows 11 installation media and tried installing it that way, but no dice.
 
The problem must have been the motherboard, so I returned it for a replacement. Two days later I reassembled the PC, installed Windows 11... and it froze again. What jiggery-pokery is this? Was something touching the side of the case and shorting out? Did I have fake RAM chips that passed the tests but only had half the capacity?
 
Could it be the CPU? The CPU? Et tu, CPU? Really? Some of Intel's more recent CPUs have a bug that causes them to draw too much power, which slowly damages them, but the i5-12600K seems to be unproblematic. Nonetheless after eliminating everything else I was perilously close to blaming it on bad electricity or bad air, so I returned the CPU and bought a considerably less capable i3-12100F instead.
 
The i3-12100 has four cores vs ten in the 12600, and it doesn't have a built-in graphics chip. It's still over twice as powerful as my Xeon 1275 and uses less power, but it's a definite step down from a 12600K. It will however play XCOM: Enemy Within at max settings.
 

After reassembling everything again the i3-12100F chugged into life. Windows 11 installed, didn't crash, it installed the updates, it continued to not crash. I downloaded Firefox, Steam, Speedfan, iCloud, a bunch of other stuff, and Windows continued to work.
 
Activating Windows 11 on this new machine was annoying, because activation was tied to the previous motherboard, which I had returned, but after entering a huge string of numbers into my mobile phone's keypad I managed to sort that out. For some reason Windows 11's "activate by phone" menu doesn't have the United Kingdom. It stops at Palau. For the record the correct telephone number is 0800 0188 354, as of October 2025, and you need to select one of the countries in the drop-down menu in order to show your device ID.
 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I installed The Outer Worlds and played it for a bit, then I wrote this blog post, and Windows 11 continued to work. I'll write about Windows 11 separately. It has a curious mixture of pointless-but-hip features that put me in mind of Active Desktop and push technology, remember that? From Windows 95? Push technology? You could have news feeds on the desktop. It didn't take off in the 1990s, but the industry has now decided to make it happen again. Also, why in the name of living heck does Notepad have embedded AI? It's a text editor.
 
Some of the menus date back to Windows 95. Technically the following menu is the Screen Saver dialogue, but don't tell me they didn't just take Windows 95's display settings screen and tweak it a bit:
 

Oh, the fonts are new, but I recognise Windows 95 when I see it. Right-click a hard drive, select "properties", and look at all those tabs. Two layers of them. That's Windows 95 all right.
 
XCOM: Enemy Within, running on Windows 11 on my new PC. 
 
It's ironic. When Apple released OS X fans of Windows laughed at the trendy Aqua interface, with its buttons that looked like droplets of water. But modern MacOS is visually clean, and functionally almost indistinguishable from mid-2000s OS X 10.4, which is great, because it gets out of the way. Meanwhile Windows is still messy, with traces of Windows 95 lurking here and there, and features spread across different control panels. The mouse speed is controlled with one panel, but the mouse cursor is controlled with another, and fixing some problems requires delving into the Windows 95-era, perhaps even Windows 3.1-era device manager.
 
What year will it be, fourteen years from now? No-one knows. In 2011 smartphones were here to stay, the iPad was a year old, and it seemed that the x86 architecture and Windows were safe for the foreseeable future. However fourteen years later Apple has successfully demonstrated that ARM will work on the desktop, Intel is in a terminal death spiral, Windows itself seems to be drifting ARM-wards, laptops are mostly on a par with desktop machines, held back only by weak graphics, and it's entirely possible that computers fourteen years hence will be dumb terminals streaming everything from the internet.
 
I'm reasonably confident that my PC will still be relevant - if Microsoft drops x86 support tomorrow it'll still take several years for it to fade away - and of course my PC is ripe for upgrades, because it has an i3. In the next post, let's see how Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 works on this new machine. There's a sequel, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, but I'm not made of money. Let's try Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. If the machine can survive that, it'll survive anything.

Saturday, 1 November 2025

Every Jetliner Ever Made: Embraer

Let's have a look at Every Jetliner Ever Made, in alphabetical order, but with Airbus and Boeing at the end because the list would be incredibly front-loaded otherwise. Today we're going to look at Embraer, of Brazil, where we stood beneath an amber moon, and softy murmured "some day soon".

Embraer (Brazil)

Up until the mid 1960s Brazil's aviation industry relied on foreign designs, such as the Savoia-Marchetti S55 flying boat and the Lockheed Electra pictured on the stamps at the top of the page. The Brazilian government decided it was high time to kickstart the country's domestic aviation industry, so it issued a specification for a light turboprop transport with a view to military and commercial sales.

A team led by French import Max Holste came up with a sleek, low-winged design, which was eventually called the Bandeirante, or Pioneer. It was named after the 16th- and 17th-century bandeirantes, who had ventured into the Brazilian interior in order to peacefully persuade the local inhabitants to work on farms and worship the correct God. The bandeirante are controversial nowadays and I suspect that if the aircraft had been designed in the modern age it would have a different name.

The aircraft's design process was similar to the Soviet method, whereby the prototype was constructed by Brazil's leading technical bureau, with a plan for a separate company to carry out series production. However the private sector failed to step up, and so a chap called Ozires Silva was asked to set up a state-owned aviation manufacturer, which became the Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica, or Embraer for short.

The resulting EMB 110 Bandeirante was a sleek, low-wing turboprop, not a million miles from the Handley-Page Jetstream or the Fairchild Metroliner. It went on to sell around five hundred units internationally. It was the very first aircraft of Irish low-cost airline Ryanair, who flew it from Waterford in Ireland to London Gatwick. Embraer continued to have success with turboprops over the coming decades, but in 1989 the company decided to take things up with a notch with a regional jet, the Embraer Regional Jet (ERJ).

Initially the design was very conservative. It was essentially a stretched derivative of the EMB 110, retaining the straight wings and T-tail, but with podded jet engines instead of turboprops. The result was aerodynamically fussy, so Embraer gave it rear-mounted engines instead and a gently swept wing, which ended up mirroring the configuration of the Bombardier CRJ and the Douglas DC-9. The complicated development meant that, although the ERJ had been announced at roughly the same time as the Bombardier CRJ, it entered service four years later, in 1996.

An ERJ 145

The ERJ was offered in three basic models, the ERJ 135, ERJ 140, and ERJ 145, which carried 37-50 passengers depending on the model. Embraer also built long-range variants with larger fuel tanks. The 50-seat ERJ145 accounted for the majority of sales. Despite the delay in production it managed to keep pace with the CRJ, sales-wise.

Partially this was the result of great timing. In 1992, when the CRJ entered service, smaller airliners were still wary of regional jets, but by the mid-90s turboprops were increasing perceived as being old-hat, and passengers routinely expressed a preference for jets.

The launch airline, Continental Express, was typical of ERJ's customers. In the mid-90s Continental had a fleet of aging turboprops of different types that had been accumulated over the years. Rather than replace them like-for-like the airline decided to switch to regional jets instead, with an order for 200 ERJs. Over time the ERJ also developed an excellent safety record, with ten crashes but no fatalities to date, which is impressive for an airliner designed to make a lot of short flights. ERJs are still routinely used nowadays, with production only ending with the COVID pandemic in 2020.

The ERJ (right) was visually similar to the Bombardier CRJ (left), but with a sleeker nose and different engines. Bombardier used the General Electric CF34 while Embraer used the Allison / Rolls-Royce AE 3007.

As is the fashion for regional jet manufacturers, Embraer decided to follow up the success of the ERJ by chasing a slightly larger segment. In 2002 the company launched its next airliner, the E-Jet, which was closer in size and specification to the hugely popular Airbus A320 and Boeing 737, although around two-thirds the size. The original plan was to stretch and re-engineer the ERJ, but perhaps mindful of the delays incurred during the early development of that aircraft Embraer decided on a clean-sheet design instead.

An E-190

The E-Jet has the same configuration as a full-sized airliner, with a pair of engines under the wings and a conventional tail. It was at the time something of a gamble. Bombardier had toyed with the idea of a miniature full-sized jet in the late 1990s, but decided against it, which meant that the E-Jet was unique when it entered service in 2004. The most popular model turned out to be the Bombardier E-175, which carries 78 passengers, with other models - the stretched E-190 and E-195, and the original E-170 - carrying anything from around 60-100 passengers depending on configuration. Embraer also sold freighter conversions of the E-190.

The E-Jet benefited from a peculiar, US-specific law whereby airlines that have a regional subsidiary are legally obliged to use smaller airliners on that subsidiary, topping out at 76 seats, which was a perfect fit for the E-175. For that reason there was even a specific submodel of the E-175 that eliminated two seats to bring it to the 76-seat maximum.

On the whole the E-Jet benefited from a general inflationary trend in the airliner market, whereby former short-range jets such as the A-320 and 737 have been stretched and re-engined to a point where they can cross the Atlantic, while smaller regional jets have been redeployed as workhorses on trans-European routes.

Another E-190

Production of the original E-Jet continues as of this writing. In 2019 Embraer embarked on talks with Boeing for a possible deal whereby the two companies would team up to make a second-generation E-Jet. The proposal mirrored a similar deal brokered between Airbus and Bombardier that resulted in Bombardier C-Series becoming the Airbus A-220.

However a combination of COVID and Boeing's troubles with a new model of 737 eventually caused the deal to fall apart, at which point Embraer continued as an independent entity. Bombardier, meanwhile, sold its C-Series jet to Airbus, and left the passenger aviation market to concentrate on business jets.

An E-195, which is visually almost identical to the E-190, but eight feet longer and with two more rows of windows. The E2 model has two overwing exit doors instead of just one.

The reason for the talks was the E-Jet E2, which was Embraer's successor to the E-Jet. It was announced in the 2010s and entered service in 2018. The E2 has a similar two-engines-under-the-wing configuration, but with improved aerodynamics and more efficient powerplants. The two models currently in service, the E-190E2 and E-195E2, carry 96 and 120 passengers respectively. Such has been the inflation in aircraft capability over the years that the E2 is actually larger and carries more passengers than the original Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737, which was why Boeing was so keen on having something that could slot into that section of the market.

Unfortunately for Embraer sales were sluggish, not helped by the COVID pandemic. As of this writing Embraer has sold around one hundred and fifty E2s, much less than the more capacious Airbus A220, but there are around 350 more on the order books, and production is still ongoing. It has yet to land a big order with one of the more glamorous airlines, and only time will tell if it was a stretch too far.

And that's Embraer. Next, Fokker. And VFW-Fokker. And Fairchild. And Fairchild-Dornier. Or possibly just the first two, and then the next two. Or maybe all of them.