Seriously thoughtful How much computer is enough?

[Greg Anos]

This thread is an outgrowth of Desert Grandma's Netbook thread.

How much computer is enough?

When I started out with personal computers, the answer was simple. To paraphrase a girlfriend, you could never have too much RAM, too many cycles, or too much DASD. (Yep, I'm that old. DASD means hard drive -Direct Access Storage Device)

Now I'm not so sure. what do you really get that worth the change from say, Windows 2000 to Vista? Word 97 to Word 2007? or the current Gen of photoshop versus the version 10 years ago. I see the companies wanting the upgrade revenue, but as a user, is it worth feeding them the money?

This is not a Microsoft problem. I see Linuxes get bigger and bigger, and Apple's OS keeps growing larger and larger, as well. So I wonder, when is good enough - good enough. If not with today's resources, then how much more is needed?

I'd like some other perspective than mine to chime in....

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This thread is an outgrowth of Desert Grandma's Netbook thread.

How much computer is enough?

When I started out with personal computers, the answer was simple. To paraphrase a girlfriend, you could never have too much RAM, too many cycles, or too much DASD. (Yep, I'm that old. DASD means hard drive -Direct Access Storage Device)

Now I'm not so sure. what do you really get that worth the change from say, Windows 2000 to Vista? Word 97 to Word 2007? or the current Gen of photoshop versus the version 10 years ago. I see the companies wanting the upgrade revenue, but as a user, is it worth feeding them the money?

This is not a Microsoft problem. I see Linuxes get bigger and bigger, and Apple's OS keeps growing larger and larger, as well. So I wonder, when is good enough - good enough. If not with today's resources, then how much more is needed?

I'd like some other perspective than mine to chime in....

Screaming minimum (IMO) is 2 gigs of RAM (4 is better, although Vista itself can only use 3), a 500 GB HD (again, I prefer to have at least 3 TB), a good graphics card (or two). I like the Xenon processors, but if I had to choose between a zippier processor and more RAM, I'd take the RAM every time.

As far as programs, well, I still use my old Paintshop Pro v. 8.1 which was the last version before Corel took it over (and destroyed it), although I have a recent version of Photoshop.

My feeling on the software end of things, is ... if you know it and it does what you need it to do, don't bother upgrading. Most of the time it's a waste.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Screaming minimum (IMO) is 2 gigs of RAM (4 is better, although Vista itself can only use 3), a 500 GB HD (again, I prefer to have at least 3 TB), a good graphics card (or two). I like the Xenon processors, but if I had to choose between a zippier processor and more RAM, I'd take the RAM every time.

As far as programs, well, I still use my old Paintshop Pro v. 8.1 which was the last version before Corel took it over (and destroyed it), although I have a recent version of Photoshop.

My feeling on the software end of things, is ... if you know it and it does what you need it to do, don't bother upgrading. Most of the time it's a waste.

So in your opinion the current state of the art is good enough, and there's little need to improve upon it... (Just checking I've got your perspective right, no judgement intended.)

[Jaime_Astorga]

If media keeps getting bigger (for example, the whole high definition video thing, or games with really good graphics) at the very least storage will need to keep increasing in order to keep up. As for myself, I promote the view that a good and relatively cheap netbook (under $400) is about all the computer the average person of these times needs. Sure, game developers might need workstations to render models. Sure, scientists might need supercomputers to analyze data. And sure, serious computer gamers want the latest commercial rigs possible. But for most people a browser with internet access, an office suite, a GBA/SNES emulator with good games, some movies/music/books for entertainment, and a few minor programs and they should be set. The only thing I wish they would really improve (besides price) would be processor. I would like to see some better processor which nevertheless refrained from consuming too much power. Either that, or a better processor which takes the same power but much longer batteries.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How much computer is enough?

It depends on how you use it. I know people who are still using Pentium III computers. For their purposes (simple web browsing, email and general office tasks), their current computers are enough. The thing is, the way we use computers is constantly evolving. For the "usual" tasks, we have long since passed the point of "enough". However, the definition of "usual" has changed from what it was 10 years ago. Nowadays, "usual" encompasses being able watch YouTube, Hulu, QuickTime HD trailers, etc. More and more websites are using Flash for simple navigation. People are storing their entire music collection on their hard drives. Photo editing has also become a "usual" task. Then there are gamers who will never have enough.

[taosaur]

I think what we're seeing is that more than ever there are many different versions of "enough," and many different answers to "enough for what?"

For myself, I like a very capable desktop for gaming and entertainment--as near state-of-the-art as I can afford. For mobile use, I need very little.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by taosaur

I think what we're seeing is that more than ever there are many different versions of "enough," and many different answers to "enough for what?"

For myself, I like a very capable desktop for gaming and entertainment--as near state-of-the-art as I can afford. For mobile use, I need very little.

excellent point.

For myself, I don't "do" music or gaming.

I load books and pictures, not many of the pictures.

I want to surf quickly, and I hate office2007. Word 97 was great for me.

My daughter, on the otherhand, is an IPOD fanatic, uses her computer to store and download music and videos.

She loves Office2007, and uses the word program for her school files.

I don't think there is any right or wrong here. Much like book readers, everyone has different needs.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So in your opinion the current state of the art is good enough, and there's little need to improve upon it... (Just checking I've got your perspective right, no judgement intended.)

It depends. For people who need whatever the newest version of the software does, then they also really need to have the bigger, faster, and more RAM computer to load and run the usually bloated newest version.

With some programs (PSP being one of them), the latest and greatest does not mean the best version of that program. 8.1 was the last really good version, but that was when JASC owned the program. Corel and some other companies don't add much to the newer version, and screw you over on the price.

Same thing with Adobe Acrobat, the changes between versions 8 and 9 were definitely NOT worth the upgrade.

Now, for me, I do a lot of 3D models and rendering. So, if I use a computer that is old and slow to render an image with a lot of textures and (more importantly) light and shadow effects, it might take me the better part of a week (running 24 hours a day) to complete a single render ... only to discover that I don't like something and have to start over.

A higher end processor with lots of RAM .... I can do the same render in 3 or 4 hours. That's a HUGE difference. Especially since I always see something I have to tweak a few million times before I like the result.

If you are just talking about regular 2D graphics and word processing .... state of the art is fine and dandy. If you are talking about 3D graphics or video work then you can never have enough speed and memory. The extra few gigs of dedicated graphics memory on my graphics cards helps a ton with larger renders too.

It also depends on how many programs you tend to like to have up and running at the same time. On my main PC, I've got four monitors hooked up, and usually have from 6 to 8 programs up and running at the same time. It's the way I work, but it can be a bit of a resource hog at times.

Also, I like to keep several versions of each document, graphic, photo, movie .... whatever it is I produce. That's why I have so much HD space, but many's the time that the habit has pulled my ass out of a hot seat.

So, my minimum requirements are probably more than most people's. However, I also have, and still use, some older machines with old (ancient) versions of Windows on them .... I've still got (and use) my old first generation Toshiba Libretto. It's just that, if someone were to ask me how much is enough, that machine would not be my answer.

[Andybaby]

the increased media aplications alone need the current point in tech, 1080p takes a lot of power to process.

also games get more and more realistic, they need more and more power, and that pushes the specs of systems up, which lowers the price of the standard non gaming gear and makes last gen gaming stuff cheaper than rice, new programs are written to add more features to take advantage of the new boost in power and ram.

the spell check and writing and all the options in Office 07, is alot better than in 97, and they need more power.

buy last gen gear if you want to save money, you don't have to keep up with the times

[phenomshel]

...With some programs (PSP being one of them), the latest and greatest does not mean the best version of that program. 8.1 was the last really good version, but that was when JASC owned the program. Corel and some other companies don't add much to the newer version, and screw you over on the price.

Ricky's got it right on with PSP. I've used it since version 5. When Corel took it over, it imploded. I have the latest version, and I can work with it nearly as fast as I could before, but I don't recommend it. /offtopic

To answer the question, though...I have Vista 64 with 6 gigs of ram, a Core(2) Duo at 2.80ghz, and a halfway decent vid card. I run dual monitors (until Tuesday, then I'm going back to a single to better fit on my new desk). My heavy usage is PSP, Photoshop, and graphic intensive things. I also store and play back my music; store, convert, and otherwise manipulate my book files; and yes, I love Office 2007. I'm sticking with Vista even though I have the RC of Windows 7 (on another partition) and love it, because IE8 does not play nicely with my school software. Once the BlackBoard developers fix that, I may switch to the RC for my main O/S.
My computer specs are probably overkill for my needs, but my husband subscribes to the power tool rule: Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

I'm sticking with Vista even though I have the RC of Windows 7 (on another partition) and love it, because IE8 does not play nicely with my school software. Once the BlackBoard developers fix that, I may switch to the RC for my main O/S.
My computer specs are probably overkill for my needs, but my husband subscribes to the power tool rule: Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

blackboard seems to work fine in firefox, my girlfriend has never complained to me about it and shes on it all the time for her school.

also I'm a win7 convert too. I love the new smart bar. and short cuts. its nice all the way around.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Unfortunately, regardless of what we may think enough computer is, we will always have to get better computers in order to keep up with the software. This is demonstrated by the transition to Vista from XP, and stems from Wirth's law:

"Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster."

Which, of course, is enough to greatly damage the significance of Moore's law *sight*

[mores]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Now I'm not so sure. what do you really get that worth the change from say, Windows 2000 to Vista? Word 97 to Word 2007? or the current Gen of photoshop versus the version 10 years ago. I see the companies wanting the upgrade revenue, but as a user, is it worth feeding them the money?

I can't talk for everyone, but most of the apps and OSes that grow are worth it. Except for MS Office
I never use Excel, I just needed Word for minor typing, and Office97 or lower would have been enough.
But since you mention Photoshop, this is a program that I use daily and I appreciate its evolution. Photoshop from 10 years ago didn't like to add text to images. A lot of work involved. Now it's almost like a word processor

OS X 10.5 is definately better than OS X 10.2 that I started out with. Instant searches with spotlight, quickview and Exposé really increase my efficiency.

That said, do I really need 6Gb in Lexmark printer drivers (or was it canon) just because I might some day use a Lexmark (or was it canon) printer? I'd appreciate some kind of "do you want to install these drivers" option when installing an OS so that I can use the DASD space I save and fill it up with MP3, video and books

[Sweetpea]

I think enough is enough when you can do whatever you want without too much hassle.

Way back when, in the time of the first pentiums and the 486, we got my in-laws a computer. It was a 286, some small games, WP5.1 on it and that's it. At some point, my mother-in-law decided she wanted a scanner, so she bought one. But, the 286 couldn't cope with that very well and we got them a fast 486 (lots of memory, at least considering the PC ).
Everything ran perfectly again until my mother-in-law wanted that printer. She started to use the PC to make pictures and such. So, that 486 didn't cope anymore and we gave them one of our old pentiums (we never bought that 486, we just gave them one of our old ones).

In the end, they always were one stap behind the "current" level. But they used the PC from start to finish.

In contrast, some friends of theirs bought that Pentium 90 soon after we had given that 286. They bought a printer and scanner. And never used it.

I use my PC for gaming mostly, and some programming on the side. So, I like my PC to be decently up-to-date. Not that I'll buy a new one every year though...

[RWood]

All the computers here run WinXP except one that still runs Win2kPro and a 450 MHz P-3 Sony Z-505HE that runs Win98SE. The main machine is a Pent-D @ 3 GHz (old style dual core) with 2 GB RAM and 500 GB DASD. The music server is an AMD ~3.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM, and 3 TB DASD. I also run a virtual DOS 6.2.2 machine with Word for DOS 5.5 on it.

For software, some have Office 2003 and the rest have Office 2000. Photoshop is version 7, Corel is version 9, Acrobat Pro is version 6.

All of the versions are stable. This matters more than the latest features. For my work I need the computer to be available and to perform. I doesn't matter what whiz-bang is in the latest release if it is flakey. Also, other than a new set of file formats, what have the recent Office releases added -- workgroup tools. I am a solo consultant, what good do they do?

I'm not a gamer and I don't own anything blu-ray so there is no push for the latest technology. Plus this stuff is very cost effective.

Now some areas are up-to-date: OS and Office patches, Firefox, drivers, anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, anti-root kit, and the like.

On the back desk I still have an old (read 30+ year old technology) Apple II -- 1 MHz with an 8-bit data path and 128 KB bank switched RAM (64 KB at any one time.)