Why I'm Not Upgrading (Software and Hardware)


Recommended Posts

i went from an old athlon x2 3200+ 2 gig ram wih a ati x1600, to a core i5 8gig ram and a gtx470 2 years ago and the jump was bloody massive, not sure if i would notice much of a jump now to the later i5/7's though

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.

LCD and LED are the same thing ?!

political-pictures-cocaine-is-a-hell-of-a-drug.jpg

LCD and LED are the same thing ?!

political-pictures-cocaine-is-a-hell-of-a-drug.jpg

As far as how the picture is generated yes.

a LED monitor is a LCD monitor with LED backlights, either crappy sidelit LED, which has far worse PQ than LCD, since you get light bleeding and ghosting, especially around the corners. for high end image editing workstation monitors, either standard CFL backlit LCD's are used, or LED Backlit LCD's are used, the highest end ones, as I said, use local dimming blackit LEDs. Many of the best ones are in fact FCL backlit though.

so yes, the image part of LCD and LED monitors are the same thing, LED's are just thinner, and because of that also worse due to the PQ defects the diffuser plate adds to the uneven backlight.

As far as how the picture is generated yes.

a LED monitor is a LCD monitor with LED backlights, either crappy sidelit LED, which has far worse PQ than LCD, since you get light bleeding and ghosting, especially around the corners. for high end image editing workstation monitors, either standard CFL backlit LCD's are used, or LED Backlit LCD's are used, the highest end ones, as I said, use local dimming blackit LEDs. Many of the best ones are in fact FCL backlit though.

so yes, the image part of LCD and LED monitors are the same thing, LED's are just thinner, and because of that also worse due to the PQ defects the diffuser plate adds to the uneven backlight.

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

No, it's not like the 90s, where you'd buy a processor one day and a year later it couldn't even run some applications, but to say there's no point in upgrading is a bit silly.

That said, for day to day use my older Core 2 Macbook and my new i5 desktop are basically the same, as I can put 4+ Gbs of RAM and an SSD in each of them.

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.

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! :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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

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.

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

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!