Re: 5g and me


enes sarıbaş
 

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:
And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer refurbished.  I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar range will meet their needs.  And even if memory requirements have gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users.  That is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor, and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years.  I think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you replace the computer.  And the typical user, buying a machine around the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself?  If you bought a machine in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that time, it might not run Windows 10 now.  My understanding is, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7 machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video  if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a quad
core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most basic of
tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even screen
readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M. I
thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me. Had I
been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and now,
this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large websites will
freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like finereader will
lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly I future proofed
my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an r7 4800H processor
from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores. This should be powerful
enough to run anything conceivable in the next 5 or so years, except
maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:
I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So, in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth,  the lower latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements. Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in three years or so.-
I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use for its intended purpose.






Join main@TechTalk.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.