Do most people buy more computer than they need?

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: Richb1492
A friend of mines wanted to get a new fancy computer and asked what they should get. But all they do is word proccess and play mp3 files and surf the net .
I really wonder if stores and companies are selling more computer than most people need.

Unless a person is gaming or video edit Do they really need the lastest greatest computer?

I always recommend that people buy as much computer as they can afford. It gives them room to grow in their computer use.

 

[Bobthelost]

People do buy more than they need. This is mostly down to poor education about how computers work and the misguided belief that you need a P4 3.2 HT to surf the web...

 

[jlbenedict]

If people didn't buy more computer than they needed.. the computer industry would fall flat on its face.. There would be no need to advance technologies.
We would still be in the Pentium 166 , running on top of an Intel 430HX board, with 8 mb EDO ram era.... since that is really all that is needed to browse the web, and send email

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally po:laugh:sted by: Ricemarine
Huh? More computer?

If I interpret this correctly, no, people don't really buy more computer than they really need. They want something fast, manufacturers give them something fast. What they don't give them is something that they can game with easily (which is why there's a lack of good video cards), in which they focus more on hard drives, accessories, and clock speed rather than the necessities that an average joe wouldn't know.

:thumbsup:

Never such a thing as too much computer!

Sure there is. I have seen it time and time again at retailers. Somebody who knows nothing about computers comes in looking for a box to surf the web and do some word processing and emails on. They walk out with a $2000 dual core rig with a 7800GT in it. That is stupidity Googer, and there is no excuse for preying on people who look to these stores for guidance. There is absolutley such a thing as too much computer.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
If people didn't buy more computer than they needed.. the computer industry would fall flat on its face.. There would be no need to advance technologies.
We would still be in the Pentium 166 , running on top of an Intel 430HX board, with 8 mb EDO ram era.... since that is really all that is needed to browse the web, and send email

Is that all you or anybody else you know needs a computer for? Are you aware of what computers are used for and who uses them outside of ma's house?

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick

Originally posted by: Richb1492
A friend of mines wanted to get a new fancy computer and asked what they should get. But all they do is word proccess and play mp3 files and surf the net .
I really wonder if stores and companies are selling more computer than most people need.

Unless a person is gaming or video edit Do they really need the lastest greatest computer?

I always recommend that people buy as much computer as they can afford. It gives them room to grow in their computer use.

So you would recommend that the 50 yr old rich guy who will never play a game buy the box with the newest $500 vid card because he can? How is that "room to grow"? That's absurd.

Do you work at Best Buy?

 

[996GT2]

I've got a pre-2000 Dell Dimension 4100 with a 997 mhz PIII Coppermine, 512 mb PC133 SDRAM, 60GB 7.2k Hard disk drive, 8x CDRW and a 32 mb TNT2. Back in the day, it was probably the equivalent of an XPS or something. And even now, over 6 years later, it still runs Windows 2k or XP fine, even some multimedia apps too. And it's great for running linux. Sure, it's not used a lot, but I bet this 6+ year old Dell would be more than what most people need on a daily basis. It could probably even play some games at lower resolutions if the graphics were upgraded to something like a 9600 Pro. But most people don't bother with upgrading and just go out and buy new PCs even though they don't really need all the power of a new Dual-Core processor or monster amounts of hard disk space.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
If people didn't buy more computer than they needed.. the computer industry would fall flat on its face.. There would be no need to advance technologies.
We would still be in the Pentium 166 , running on top of an Intel 430HX board, with 8 mb EDO ram era.... since that is really all that is needed to browse the web, and send email

Is that all you or anybody else you know needs a computer for? Are you aware of what computers are used for and who uses them outside of ma's house?

my statement was just a general statement.. it wasn't targeted toward any specific users..

my main basis is, if there was no market for advancing computer technology, and users didn't buy more than that is needed.. then we'd all be surfing on 486's and Pentium's..

I know I buy more than is needed.. but I can bet I will not need to buy anything for three years at a minimum.. or until an application that comes out that taxes my system to the max

 

[imported_rod]

Yes. Most people buy more than they need. Any old P4 setup will handle all the office apps, mp3's and browsing most people would ever do. Only people gaming, video encoding or doing other seriously heavy computing need new computers.

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
If people didn't buy more computer than they needed.. the computer industry would fall flat on its face.. There would be no need to advance technologies.

Then we should probably be glad that people buy more computer than they need. If people only purchased what they needed, then us enthusiasts would be ignored, since 95% of people would be running 1Ghz P3's. But at the same time, I do think it's unfair that computer stores seem to pray on the average person's lack of knowledge.

RoD

 

[nyker96]

When I started building my own 7 years ago I was like that, buying like an overkill machine for my main workstation spending like say 2500 each time for just web surfing/coding/java stuff. Upgraded very often as well.

Then I wised up, now I treat it more like a tool to get a job done. If I can do all my programming work on it fine, then I don't touch it. Saved all that cash for other stuff like new running shoes, traveling. But I do play a little games that requires some update on g-card like every 12 months or so. But if my rig can play all the games I want to play then I don't even bother updating the g-card.

I thinking letting my need dictate the shape and form of machine works better for me. And also one big factor for upgrade is software, I switched to Open source stuff like few years ago which usually is well coded and no bloatware. They tends to need very little in terms of machine resources. The only exception maybe just Eclipse IDE which needs a bit more.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I am always showing $350 All-In-One towers to folks with out the need for latest & greatest. People are shocked at how well a new, fresh install system with built in LAN, Video, Sound can work for them.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: rod
Yes. Most people buy more than they need. Any old P4 setup will handle all the office apps, mp3's and browsing most people would ever do. Only people gaming, video encoding or doing other seriously heavy computing need new computers.

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
If people didn't buy more computer than they needed.. the computer industry would fall flat on its face.. There would be no need to advance technologies.

Then we should probably be glad that people buy more computer than they need. If people only purchased what they needed, then us enthusiasts would be ignored, since 95% of people would be running 1Ghz P3's. But at the same time, I do think it's unfair that computer stores seem to pray on the average person's lack of knowledge.

RoD

Exactly.

A couple of months ago, there was a commercial on the radio station.. I believe it was an HP one.. right around the holidays.. they were really pushing the fact that everybody should be running a dual core processor because "you can run your demanding tax software and download music at the same time".. .
You can tell immediately these commercials are targeted to the uninformed

 

[furballi]

If a 1GHz PC is equipped with 512MB RAM and is properly tuned, then it should work well for most non-gaming users. A new off-the-shelf PC comes with so much garbage pre-loaded at boot. That's why these rigs require at least 1GB of RAM or a clean re-install of Windows. Most DELLs will pull about 200MB RAM just idling. This is a strategy used by PC vendors to get you to buy an expensive PC, which usually come with 1GB RAM.

My custom WXP Pro rig pulls less than 80MB RAM after reboot (McAfee 8.0i corporate and ZA Firewall running in the background). This NF3/Sempron 3100 overclocked to 2400MHz is much more responsive than the high-end retail stuffs with the factory bloatware. No problem running 1M digits Super Pi in 38.6 sec. I'm not a gamer.

The value of a used PC can drop by more than 50% in a year. This $90 combo should perform well for at least 3 to 5 years (annualized cost of $30).

BTW, I run Prime95 in MAX CPU/HEAT mode (100% CPU load) with this system and I have no problem browsing the web or running MS Office. These proggies may run a few tenths of a sec slower, but not enough of a change for me to notice.

Don't buy into the marketing hype of larger onboard cache and dual core. These thing may shave a second or two off 1M Super Pi, but they are NOT going to do much for day-to-day use.

 

[drum]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
I remember when my grandma bought her emachine from best buy. It came with windows xp home edition, i think an 80gb slow hard drive, 1000mhz intel celeron, 128mb pc100 ram. that computer was slow. It took forever too boot up. My grandma put that aol 9.0 se on it. that took forever to load. And my grandma ran whole bunch of other pointless program that started on bootup, such as some weather thing, call wave, my comet, and some other programs. The lack of memory in that system, just made unusable. back in the fall I, built granny a new used computer out of spare parts that i had here. Now she has 2.0ghz athlon barton, 80gb 7200rpm 1gb memory. Now that system goes. But yea, i'll go to best buy just to look around and see what kind of system offer they have. alot of them come with like 2.0ghz+ processor, measley 256mb ram, then video card that shares 64mb of the system ram. The hard drives, they are like 80gb+, but most likely use the slow piece of crap 5400 rpm. A good web surf, email, word processing, can get by with a sub 2.0ghz, 80gb 7200rpm, and at least 512mb system, i rather have 1gb system ram though.

your grandma has a faster machine than I do 🙁

 

[Mday]

yes, but you have to consider the operating system.

most people could have stuck with windows 3.1. Moving to Win95 required a beefier system. Then XP came out, and well... yeah.

To read email and surf the web, you do not need much more than a PDA, and you know how "powerful" those are.

Frankly, when I use my desktop, I use it. That is, what I do needs RAM, the graphics and the processor power. Of course, thats when I use my desktop. My common everyday activities are done with a laptop which actually cost less than my desktop configuration.

Just because most of the time, you do not need a more powerful system doesn't mean you shouldn't. I mean, cars can go 100+ MPH, but that does not get you to work faster (unless you happen to have no traffic or lights, or pedestrians). Of course, there's the argument that I have a $3000 paperweight most of the time.