Re: 5g and me


David Moore
 

I have a a $250 laptop, 4 gig of RAM and I have the latest version of Windows 10, I run jaws, and vda, and have many browser tabs opened at once, and it runs beautifully. You do not need these specs like 16 gigs of RAM unless you are gaming or doing a lot of video editing, which I do neither. don't let people tell you that you need the highest specs on a computer or phone.


On Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:45 PM enes sarıbaş <enes.saribas@...> wrote:
Just because you may consider a system adequate for your own needs
doesn't mean it is for  is for everyone. A system like that would have
major compremises. For clerification, I am talking about laptop prices,
desktops in that price range may in fact be midrange. What I am saying
is a minimum system for anyone should have a 6 core or so CPU, 8 gb or
16 gb of dual channel ram, an I5processor etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:
> Hi list,
> : enes sarıbaş  thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
> He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
> The  one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased;  that was in the last millennium.
> If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today,  it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
> : enes sarıbaş   go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
> Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
> Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
> To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me
>
> That simply is not true.  A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.
>
> And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.
>
> Gene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: enes sarıbaş
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
> To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me
>
> 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.