Compare and contrast (PIC)

[gator]

I found an interesting pic today when I was searching for some 600X stuff:



Yes, that is the 600X on the dock - the first time I saw it, I thought the 600X was sitting on a mini-tower! Then I found out (from the forums and thinkwiki) that it was the advanced docking station for the 600 series. (and some other thinkpads). On seeing this pic, I was drawn to seeing pics of other docking stations, and I found the following:





Pic #2 is a T30 in its advanced dock, and the last pic is the advanced dock for the T60 posted on the forum (thanks to mybellyisempty).

As I look at these pics, I could not help but wonder how far we have come in the last one decade w.r.t hardware in general and laptops in particular. At the same time, I also cannot help but wonder where we are going to go in the next 10 years. Probably for the first time in years, the hardware is ahead of software (though that will change soon), and sometimes I think whether we **really** are making the best use of available hardware today ... I remember my 8086 programming lab back in undergrad (just 2001, I am not OLD ), where we used to write assembly level programs by hand, and how hard we used to work to get the program size as small as possible to "fit" it into the (literally) onboard EEPROM chips.

I know I am no stalwart when it comes to computing (there are people on the forum who have been been using computers from the days of the original IBM PC), but just compare and contrast the situation from 5 years ago with NOW: You'll see today's 'advancements' like the mammoth HDD sizes even for notebooks (300 GB on a single platter announced by Fujitsu), the now standard 1/2 GB RAM on newer laptops/desktops, Vista taking up an insane 15 GB for installation, HD-DVD/Blu-ray at ~15-20 GB (when I really can't see any difference between a DVD and good DVD-rip), graphics cards with 512 MB video RAM (my first computer had 8MB of total RAM!) etc., I sometimes ask myself, "Do we really need all these?". The answer, IMHO is 'probably not' for many of these 'advancements' ...

Please note that I am a big fan of being up-to-date in technology as far as it makes things **really** better, like for example 2000/XP bought a stable OS. The word *really* is the key, and I know that different people percieve 'improvements' differently. What I consider useless, someone else might consider useful or even absolutely necessary ... but nevertheless, sometimes (actually, many times) it so happens that some 'improvements' as marketed by companies are really not, and still many people go ahead and adopt them. I have made such mistakes too ... but now I am a bit wiser. I know that I'll eventually have to play the upgrade game someday, but I am going to delay it as much as I can.

What are you guys feel as to "Do we really need it?" question?

[jdhurst]

There are (for me) two broad answers to: Do we really need it?

1. If one wants to run XP Pro and Office 2003 in order to be knowledgeable in business (I do) then a selection of today's hardware nicely fits. That is, yes, we really need today's hardware.

A T23 (1.1Ghz), a T30 (2.0Ghz) and a T41 (1.8Ghz PM) with enough memory (768Mb) and a decent hard drive (7200-rpm absolute minimum) will all run XP Pro, Office 2003, VMware and a virtual machine or two. Of this lot, my T41 is the best, but I am always pleased at the T30 when I service those for a client.

2. If one wants to run a decent OS (Windows 2000 remains decent) and have a decent Office suite (Office 2000 remains decent), then an A22e with 512Mb of memory, 850Mhz CPU and 5400-rpm hard drive will do the trick.

Anything less than (1) for XP Pro is not adequate (in my opinion) and anything less than (2) is not adequate at all. So, in my opinion, the hardware has not outrun the software (at least not by much).

It really wasn't until we got to the 1Ghz CPU and fast hard drives that I was really satisfied that what I have works well, is highly stable and error-free, and causes me not to "need" the next generation. I will get there sometime.
... JDH

[gator]

JDH, nice post ... I am with you w.r.t. to the XP and Office 2003 requirements, no questions. We do need a machine with 768MB-1GB RAM and a decent CPU (so that the machine does not run too hot) for running windows smoothly ...

The "do we really need all these" was for some of the stuff that is availble today (like the list above) and going to be available later on. My point was that we are at a really good place as for both hardware (Core 2 duo/RAM/HDD etc) and software, and to me, the most important thing we need to focus is power management ... we are heading there with solid state drives and dynamically managed FSB in Santa Rosa etc, but when time comes for the 45nm refresh, we'll obviously see a (needless? I don't know) speed bump once again. I probably sound crazy ("640 kb ought to be enough for anyone") and I know many people will disagree with my opinion. Many will have very valid reasons to upgrade (heck, even I might, who knows?) ... but inspite of this, I do feel that what we have now is AMAZING and anything more is probably overkill!

[bill bolton]

but inspite of this, I do feel that what we have now is AMAZING and anything more is probably overkill!

It really depends on what you use a computer for.

While I'm still happy with my T43 right now, I know that for my business purpose, by the end of the year it will be struggling to sustain the overall performance envelope (software suite, connectivity, number crunching performance etc) I need to run to support the business service level I require for my clients to percieve the what I do is an irrestistable value-add for them!

By that time I will have been using a T43 for two years and that is a pretty good run for the money in terms of a computer in my business (enterprise architecture consulting).

Core 2 technology, a larger addressable memory space, bigger drives and higher speed wireless connectivity are all significant for my business purposes.

YMMV

Cheers,

Bill B.

[KristianJ]

It really depends on what you use a computer for.

Sums up what I think perfectly. To see where technology has brought computers today is remarkable, however I'd guess that a slight majority would not need the cutting edge to carry on with their lives/businesses.

Personally, the most interest I have is in storage (both onboard and external), since I take a lot of digital photos and video and store a lot of my CDs in digital format for more convenient at home listening. So increased hard drive capacities is something I would be most keen on. Nothing else really matters that much, which means I'm confident that my T42 will serve me well for a few years yet.

However it's different for everyone based on what they do (professional using specialised software, power gamer, etc.) My experiences with my T23 have told me that the typical domestic "browsing/word processing" user would be just as well served by something equal to the sample A22m JDH mentions by whatever is only just hitting the shelves.

[furrycute]

All I do nowadays is word processing, surfing the web, checking e-mail, listening to music and on occasion watching a couple of DVD's. For all of these task, even my Pentium III notebook is more than adequate.

But for Photoshop CS3, I like the speed of my Core 2 Duo

[anthean]

All I do nowadays is word processing, surfing the web, checking e-mail, listening to music and on occasion watching a couple of DVD's.

This is mostly me, although I do VPN into my work computer. But again, no great speed on my home desktop or Thinkpad is needed.

Even regarding my work machine (a dual core system), all that really matters are the speed of the servers.

[Kyocera]

By that time I will have been using a T43 for two years and that is a pretty good run for the money in terms of a computer in my business (enterprise architecture consulting).

Man i wish i could go two years, the last 5 years have seen significant changes, hardware and now OS wise, i have to migrate to the Vista world as customers are slowly going for it (in tiny bites). Seems like the last 5 years have seen some seriously significant changes in HD, processors, RAM, software and OS. May have to skip a T61 and go for a 62 or "70"

[jdhurst]

I need to get to Vista as well as soon as I can, but (1) read the posts here - Vista is not business-ready yet and (2) the VPN vendors are dragging their feet (I have never seen such a lazy bunch of vendors doing nothing for such a long time).

In the meantime, XP Pro has been out for 6 years. My T41 is nearing 4 years old. It has been running a 7200-rpm hard drive since day 1, and a Dothan CPU since month 3. So there really have not been any sea changes that I can see. Incremental improvements to be sure, but nothing yet to force a change.

My NetVista A30 is five years old running all the same stuff as my T41.

I do agree, however, that changes are coming at us. I have been slowing buying Vista upgrades for software to be ready. I may gamble some money on Office 2007 on a spare machine to see if Outlook works. I have read that Outlook 2007 cannot render HTML mail, only its own broken form of wannabe HTML imposed by Word (which was defective in this regard from day 1).
... JDH

[gator]

I have read that Outlook 2007 cannot render HTML mail, only its own broken form of wannabe HTML imposed by Word

That is 100% percent corrent.