and it does. What is the purpose of earning money if not to spend it on things that improve your quality of life? Also, windows 7 systems not running 10 is incorrect. Only computers before the vista era aren't able to handle 10.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 10/15/2020 8:23 AM, Monte Single wrote:
Your sstatements about computer useage and hardware may all be correct.
That fact is that another 500 or 1000 dollars to a fairly large per centage of the population, doesn't matter. Tey feel that spending more money will serve them better.
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me
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.
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me
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
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
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