52 replies to this topic 1 votes

[+Asik]

Well if your computer does everything you want at a level of performance that's perfectly acceptable to you, then indeed there might be no reason to spend any money on something new. My aunt is still using a Pentium 3 from 2001 with Windows ME to browse the web and check her emails.

That said, technology and software have improved by leaps and bounds in the past 4-5 years. If you care to check CPU benchmarks, you'll see current-generation processors are many times faster (orders of magnitude, even) than the Core 2 Duo. Video cards have improved even faster. On the software side, Windows have gotten much faster, robust and secure since Windows XP; the UI has also been greatly improved. This matters for anyone doing performance-sensitive activities like playing recent games, or executing heavy workloads like video encoding, code compilation, etc.

[seta-san]

megahertz wars ended along time ago. if you're still basing purchases based on clock speeds then I've go a hell of deal for you with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4

[Mr Spoon]

pes2013, on 03 February 2013 - 12:18, said:

It does not matter that what you have doesnt use it because 99% of what you will buy in the future will be USB3. From phones, to cams, to printers, etc.

Although to be fair, probably less than 50% of the tech I buy in the future will be USB-3, I would expect USB-4 will be out by then, with a 10% faster transfer rate - WOW!
But I get your point.

Perhaps it's just my lack of interest in upgrading as I go along. I guess the review of the all in one tiny PC would be much more suited to me as it'll last... just far too expensive, but then I might be able to get that price down by not including things I don't need.

[HawkMan]

Draconian Guppy, on 03 February 2013 - 14:39, said:

True, until we have real LED monitors and not just LED backlit... At the moment, every tv/monitor sold, manufacturers should obligatorily say LED backlighting

There are already true "LED" monitors, these are not good monitors, LED is not a display technology, LED monitors is what's used for those giant sports stadion screens. I guess you're thinking of OLED. which is completely different. As for quality, so far OLED has only proven to provide better blacks and dynamic contrast, not better true contrast and color gamut, besides there's the issue with every sub pixel getting worse for every time it's lit up.

[warwagon]

Mr Spoon, on 02 February 2013 - 14:52, said:

SSD - Still too expensive for what they are.
Windows 8 - Built for touch screens really.

Well I don't think they are that expensive they have really come down in price. In fact all 5 of my computers have SSD drives. Yes Windows 8 was built for touch screens.

[pes2013]

HawkMan, on 03 February 2013 - 12:23, said:

Except a proper high quality LCD/LED(they're the same thing, in fact an LCD is BETTER than an LED in general, unless it's high end back lit) will have a higher color gamut than your CRT.

I want real colors. AFAIK, I do not get that on a LCD or LED monitor. Also Ive tested this with old and new LCDs monitors.

For me (note the "for me" part) the colors are not the same and are distorted.

[HawkMan]

So have you tested this with cheap TN panel monitors or proper high quality displays ?

cause as I said, CRT's have a lower Color Gamut than a proper high quality LCD display. hence, they have more "real" colors, and more of them at that. go to any large photo equipment store and go to their monitor section and tell me how many CRT monitors you see there.

[pes2013]

Mr. Spoon, I apologize if my removed post was a attack as I assure you it wasn't. "Made yourself look like a fool" was a statement, I was not actually calling you a fool as the first part of your post brought up good points:

My revised post:

The second part of your post completely invalidates the first part
USB3 will be the future. When you buy a PC you future proof it.
I don't even know what to reply to this; You simply look it up on Wikipedia and it will tell you what Sandy Bridge is
The more speed, better processor thing is from 2000. It doesnt happen in 2013
Until you have experienced a SSD, you have NO idea the performance gain it gives.
Have you ever tried Windows 8 for more than a week? There is more that meets the eye.

Again I apologize.

[Axel]

I'd genuinely reconsider your position against an SSD purchase. It'll breathe new life into your machine. TRUST ME.

I agree with many of your sentiments though. I'm still rocking the following spec from 2007:

• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz
  
• RAM: 4Gb PC2-6400
  
• Graphics: nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 640mb (This could do with an upgrade actually for the few games I play)

Only upgrades to that machine have been a new PSU/Case purchase and the SSD. The SSD made a ridiculously performance difference.

[sanctified]

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.

[RandyC]

I recently bought a new business laptop replacing my previous 5yr old one. The difference in day to day performance hasn't been very great but the main reason I upgraded was to have a warranty. I have a three year on-site warranty which gives me peice of mind so that it wouldn't affect my business - last thing I would want to do was to mess around with a laptops' innards to get it to work with work deadlines looming

I have my old laptop as a standby too which is a bonus.

[Arceles]

Axel, on 04 February 2013 - 08:44, said:

I'd genuinely reconsider your position against an SSD purchase. It'll breathe new life into your machine. TRUST ME.

I agree with many of your sentiments though. I'm still rocking the following spec from 2007:

• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz
  
• RAM: 4Gb PC2-6400
  
• Graphics: nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 640mb (This could do with an upgrade actually for the few games I play)

Only upgrades to that machine have been a new PSU/Case purchase and the SSD. The SSD made a ridiculously performance difference.

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.

[MFH]

Arceles, on 04 February 2013 - 11:08, said:

win7 takes a good long 5 minutes

Something in your installation is obviously broken...

[+remixedcat]

Arceles, on 04 February 2013 - 11:08, said:

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.

Actually I had my Server 2012 running without a reboot for 60 days on this SSD and it never slowed or bogged down (I just had to reboot for updates)
I had my Windows 7 install up for 35 days and it started to be really sluggish. I had to reboot every month for that OS and on an HDD.

[Shannon]

Arceles, on 04 February 2013 - 11:08, said:

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.

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.