Jump to content



Photo

Why I'm Not Upgrading (Software and Hardware)


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#46 RandyC

RandyC

    Neowinian

  • 207 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 03
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 04 February 2013 - 14:26

What I find ironic (not specifically talking about you) is that people complain about the cost of an SSD but will spend hundreds of dollars on a new CPU or GPU for marginally, barely even noticeable improvements in performance. No other upgrade will have as noticeable of an impact on system responsiveness as an SSD. The fact that I can boot to my Windows desktop in under 10 seconds far outweighs another 10fps in a game. IMO, SSDs are anything but underrated when you consider the amount of money people spend on other upgrades for minimal improvements. When you stop looking at SSDs as a replacement for your 2TB harddrive then they make incredible sense.


Agreed. I would have been happy to continue to use my old laptop (which has a SSD) as the performance especially on boot up is much better than my new laptop which I haven't installed a SSD into yet and have had to make do with a 7200k mechanical drive. The performance gains make it well worthwhile the cost - even 2 years ago when I bought my 64GB SSD for £110.


#47 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,948 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 14:32

The majority of the performance notice you'll see is in use of apps lime Photoshop and in gaming. It's true that jumping from the older quads to the newer ones doesn't feel that much different in normal desktop and browsing use. Still worth the upgrade though IMO

#48 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,662 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 04 February 2013 - 14:52

An SSD would for me only provide tangible performance changes in windows startup and app startup. since I "never" reboot my computers and most of my apps are rarely restarted and I don't care if they take 1 or 5 seconds to start, it doesn't provide any REAL performance benefits, it doesn't make my render faster, it doesn't make photoshop do it's job faster, it doesn't my web pages load faster and so on.

it would potentially provide a loading benefit in heavy games, especially MMO's which load a lot of data continually. in practice though, since most MMO's stream the textures anyway, the difference would be, negligible if any at all.

for someone who closes their browser after they browse one website and open it again for the next, and closes the mail for ever mail read, then yeah sure. but my my usage, no tangible benefit worth the cost.

#49 Axel

Axel

    --[Est. 1986]--

  • 5,435 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 03
  • Location: Milton Keynes, UK

Posted 04 February 2013 - 15:29

SSDs are a bit overrated, true, they speed up boot times but after that it's just quite the same. I have Win7 on a mechanical drive and Win8 on SSD, win8 starts in less than 20 seconds and win7 takes a good long 5 minutes (mostly because Win8 has only games on it and Win7 has programs like matlab and labview, plus visual studio) but after the initial load is completed then the performance difference still very negligible.


Not just boot times. Load times for pretty much any app stored on the SSD. Reading or writing any data. When you think about the benefits individually like that it doesn't seem like a big step. When you add the sum of all these benefits together, it makes for a MUCH snappier and responsive system. The effect is completely noticeable on a day to day basis.

An SSD would for me only provide tangible performance changes in windows startup and app startup. since I "never" reboot my computers and most of my apps are rarely restarted and I don't care if they take 1 or 5 seconds to start, it doesn't provide any REAL performance benefits, it doesn't make my render faster, it doesn't make photoshop do it's job faster, it doesn't my web pages load faster and so on.

it would potentially provide a loading benefit in heavy games, especially MMO's which load a lot of data continually. in practice though, since most MMO's stream the textures anyway, the difference would be, negligible if any at all.

for someone who closes their browser after they browse one website and open it again for the next, and closes the mail for ever mail read, then yeah sure. but my my usage, no tangible benefit worth the cost.


Fair enough I guess. Would love to see if you'd feel the same after using one though. Some sort of blind test! :p

#50 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 04 February 2013 - 18:43

Something in your installation is obviously broken...


You wish I had something broken on my installation, I simply do some serious stuff on win7, I have a lot of programs just for work, not only those three I mentioned.

#51 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,948 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 13:08

I love my SSD. For me it's not about boot up speed, there's only about 30% in it over my old mechanical drive, but it does improve system responsiveness substantially. Programs start instantly, and updates (even .net framework updates) install extremely quickly. Having owned one for more than a year I intend never to boot from a mechanical hard drive again.

#52 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8 - OG
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4 16GB by LG

Posted 05 February 2013 - 23:25

The thing with technology advancement is that it has made us compulsive upgraders (ergo compulsive consumers). But we need to ask the question: In what way these home computer advancements have made our life really better than 10 year old technology? We could argue that new software's features are necessary and make our work easier, but actually it makes us lazier. New software only make us to buy new hardware. Yeah, some things like SSD and USB3 are really practical, but it's not like computing it's impossible without them.

For the past five years I've been an advocate of frugal computing. This is quite tricky because it needs a compromise. It requires to avoid the urge to always have the latest and greatest versions of your software installed. I'm not saying that we don't need updated software, of course we need patches and maintenance releases (point releases) I'm talking about new versions, with more bells and whistles... and bigger hardware requirements. A new version does not render our old version obsolete. Not at all.

The same works with hardware, because of a logical principle: If you keep using your trusting software tools without upgrading them compulsively then there's no need to keep upgrading your hardware. It will work as good as new really if you take good care of it. (The most problematic hardware component could be mechanical HDDs. Of course these should be replaced).

One of my best friends kept using his Pentium III (550mhz) machine for ELEVEN years. Also I know a publishing company that has its entire editorial production workflow based on old Apple machines running System 9. Another friend run an entire music studio using an Amiga 3000, a custom made Windows 95 machine and an ATARI MEGA STE!!!!

Tell me, why these people should upgrade? They have mastered their tools. They have chosen the workflow that fits the best for them. They have avoided the consumerist game of compulsive upgrading.

Games? I can play thousands of great games with a 10 year old machine! Graphics don't make the game.

My machines usually last at least four years but I still have a lot to learn about these people. Currently I have an iMac 27". I'm planning to use this machine as my main tool for at least seven years.


Well said that man....

My desktop is over 5 years old with the drives 7200RPM 500GBx2 replaced with SSDs and the 2x20" monitors replaces with 1x27"... still runs like beast and as much as I'd like to build a new one, it's just wholly unjustifiable.
I have upgraded the OS - it came with Vista, had 7 and now has 8 on it. Otherwise I have Office 2007, Visio 2007 and Adobe CS3 Web Premium - all still doing their job and working fine.
I am not tight, but don't see the point on spending money unless I actually need to.

To the OP - if you are happy with your computer, don't upgrade it. Save your cash until you actually want to upgrade and your machine is not performing well enough.

#53 Dashel

Dashel

    Disgustipator

  • 7,707 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 01
  • Location: USA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 23:32

Well, if you don't do anything new, sure - don't upgrade till something breaks! To say that Moore's law suddenly stopped or that there aren't new and exciting technologies is silly. Sure, we've hit some stagnation, but it has been our usage habits, not the hardware.

Additionally, since conventional HDD prices spiked, in many cases SSD's are also the cheaper option so for many it should be a no brainer. The HDD is the biggest bottleneck in most systems so that is where you attack performance, not some rainbow and unicorn Mac fantasy land where just adding more memory is a panacea.