There's a bias in this forum

My apologies, I'm just dumbfounded why this thread was started in the first place and how it hasn't been soundly put to bed after 5 pages...

 

I guess there is a lot of opinionated people whom wants to persuade the other side to their line of thoughts. I have put forward my reasoning and i don't think there is much else i can add to it.

But i don't think people should take everything too seriously, if other people don't subscribe to why you think in a certain way, after putting forward your reasoning. Then just let it be, and enjoy the moment for what it is.

We can still be friends even if we have different opinions on certain matters.

 

lead...this is the internet. Everything is serious!

 

Well... diving in with a reply without reading the entire thread, so what I'll say's probably mentioned. Anyway...

"Maxing out" a processor is unnecessary, unwise and unwarranted - even if money is no object for a very simple, fundamental and obvious reason: BATTERY LIFE.

We laptop users value battery life highly as it contributes to our mobility - more so when we use WiFi/WWAN/3G/WCDMA/HSDPA/Mobile broadband (using the built-in modem or modem dongle) to get connected.

Battery life is a reason why some users advise against a 7,200 rpm HDD despite its performance boost. Deeper pockets will go for an SSD.

Likewise, despite speedstep technology, we need to calibrate our machine specs to our needs.

Using an i7 processor for surfing, emails, IMs, webcam, office tasks (which form the bulk of computing activity for most folks) is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly - totally unnecessary when a better & lighter option is available.

Using a higher spec processor also generate more heat = more heat stress = no good for electronics in general.

While their capabilities have steadily increased over time, laptops aren't meant to be an "all-in-one" solution for everyone. It is increasingly one for most people - but not all.

Need the grunt? Get or use a workstation provided instead.

 

I thought we'd been over that. I am a computer proffesional. A lot of my time was spent "benchmarking" our machines. Now tell me something I don't about machines because yes, notebooks are different from mainframes but I maxout configurationwise, not performance wise exxcept for when I'm actually bench marking. Macines ARE rated for their top end processors by Lenovo. Benchmarking is done by professionals.
Renee

 

“I would acknowledge there's an inclination towards "mid-range" CPUs on this forum, but I think bias is the wrong word. Bias implies prejudice, not based on facts, which I think is clearly not the case here.”

“If anyone is going to say the forums are biased to mid-range CPU's I guess they are not wrong. But it's only because most people don't even explain what the heck they are going to be doing with the computer.”

So there is a bias that means both GROWTH and System Longevity are more of a challenge which is the point of this thread.
Renee

 

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, You have to be retarded to do it in the first place. Lead nailed it for me quickly. Next time I'll just PM someone. I feel somewhat responsible for the resulting p*ssing contest

 

"Bias implies prejudice, not based on facts, which I think is clearly not the case here.”

Zaz, to you it does. And we are seeing lay biases here such saying that machines with maxed out configurations should not be run when they are tested and sold by lenovo.
Renee

 

The laptop, or simply, "technology aficionado" who is looking at high end processors in the first place will rarely change his mind just because a few people on this forum tell him he doesn't need it.

However, that is small part of the market, and most people do come here with nothing more than simple notebook tasks for their CPU to handle. It makes sense that there would be more suggestions for mid-range processors.

I have to completely disagree with Renee. Just because there are threads where everyone is pushing a user for a mid-range processor, does not mean there are no threads where people aren't recommending the high-end processor.

I have seen more than enough threads with Zaz, MidnightSun, Johnlumpkin, Gmoneyphatstyle (woot woot), Leadorg, and others, saying time and time again, get the higher end CPU if you need it.

Even IF that wasn't true, and the forum IS extremely biased, and people are getting screwed over by buying processors that are too weak for their daily use, where are they and why aren't they back here belly-aching about it? Might be because the mid-range processor they bought last year for their average notebook needs is still running firefox and windows media player just the same as it was back then. Something tells me that if a new Windows came out tomorrow, that same processor would still run windows media player with no noticeable difference.

Yeah for like, a year. Maybe I didn't understand this statement properly, but if I buy a system 1 year later with better specs and for less than you bought your maxed out system, your price driven result just got pwned.

Your T61 wins benchmarks against what? The T61 from the same line that came with the weaker processor? Guaranteed you spent X number of dollars on your T61 and somewhere a year later someone bought another laptop for less than what you paid which is better performance wise.

And no, I did not read the entire thread before posting.

 

“The laptop, or simply, "technology aficionado" who is looking at high end processors in the first place will rarely change his mind just because a few people on this forum tell him he doesn't need it.”

Or her mind, after all I have been at this professionally for a many decades.

“However, that is small part of the market, and most people do come here with nothing more than simple notebook tasks for their CPU to handle. It makes sense that there would be more suggestions for mid-range processors.”

That was one of the reasons I started this thread which was to discuss that. The Thinkpads were originally not bought on a “here today-trash tomorrow” philosophy. Instead they are made to last for many years. But people here do not configure them to last. I am advocating a method which removes processors from the perennial presales cycle."

It is what Thinkpads used to be, not the ever-replaced-computer, instead the lasting computer. I’m talking about a wise pre-sales cycle and not a here-today, gone-tomorrow kind of presales cycle, but one the user can grow into.

"I have to completely disagree with Renee. Just because there are threads where everyone is pushing a user for a mid-range processor, does not mean there are no threads where people aren't recommending the high-end processor."

Completely disagree with me? I am talking about growth of a machine and a person.

“I have seen more than enough threads with Zaz, MidnightSun, Johnlumpkin, Gmoneyphatstyle (woot woot), Leadorg, and others, saying time and time again, get the higher end CPU if you need it.”

And you should realize that they say it but not enough-THAT SHOULD Be the bias of the forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee
A price driven decision will always achieve price driven results.
Renee"

Yeah for like, a year. Maybe I didn't understand this statement properly, but if I buy a system 1 year later with better specs and for less than you bought your maxed out system, your price driven result just got pwned.
Your T61 wins benchmarks against what? The T61 from the same line that came with the weaker processor? Guaranteed you spent X number of dollars on your T61 and somewhere a year later someone bought another laptop for less than what you paid which is better performance wise.”

No. Not guaranteed at all.

Renee

 

the entire computer industry used to be like that.   these days everyone wants to keep up with their peers by having the latest and greatest -- at least what you see on forums.   in real life, i'm not seeing product turnover as quickly as i do online.   i personally know a lot of thinkpad owners (including lenovo employees) who are still using 1~2 year old systems even though they have the funds and/or means to upgrade.

trying to convince everyone that they should buy more than what they need today so they can keep their system 1~2 years longer is an uphill battle.   not everyone has the funds to spend that extra bit to get the next highest processor.   and, not everyone needs that next highest processor anyway and will never tax it fully three years from now let alone today.   besides, in many cases, an SSD will net a user a much better net increase in system performance than 200 more MHz.   there's nothing wrong with recommending an SSD over a processor if the need is there and budget allows.

you're trying to fight both an internet trend and capitalism -- neither of which you have any control over.   consumers will buy what they want, when they want it, and whenever they can afford it.   if they buy because they need a faster system, so be it.   if they buy because a new thinkpad provides a new feature they need, so be it.   if they have a question, they'll ask on a forum.   those who already know they need top-level equipment will simply buy it and not care about what a forum has to say about it.

 

Well your right and your also not mentioning some things that need mentoining.

First all we have the finest processors we've ever had,today. They will do more and the user can do more with then than ever before. But that is not my point.

This is what thinkpads are famous for-is their resistance to the fray and NOT being in the fray

You see, I can't buy a nice laptop these days becuse people want to buy an inferior machine to do what it does cha-cha-cha. Yet, day and day out we see people who want their machines to last. Do you think people really bought think pads to play games on? No,they didn't.

Don't ask me to defend capitalism-I'm not a capitlist and I recognize it's not in my control but it is in our hands collectively.
Renee

 

My company is the case and point of buying as inferior as possible to get the job done. Its unfortunate since Im the IT guy and when things don't work or aren't up to insta-gratification end users satisfaction I get blamed. We got some really nice Dual core CPUs in our cad stations instead of the quad core I recommended. As well as gaming cards instead of ones setup for CAD and 3d work. Because of this the machines do the job, but much slower and unreliable then it could have been had we spent 1000 instead of 750. In the long haul the 250 would have made our workstations still compliant today, but instead we are seeing performance limitations due to this.

Now as for my personal purchase, I promised myself that I would go for a more powerful setup. But the funds just weren't there. So I got the best I could afford and deal with slightly longer compile times, and a few FPS when I do game.

 

As I stated in another thread, my next notebook will be at least 3.2ghz. I do a lot of CAD, and ray tracing, and finite element analysis. Also doing high-def video on a dual-core is questionable.

There is a place for high-performance notebooks, but I wish they were more reasonable in price. We live in he world of the $100 quadcore chip; and so my next notebook might be a 3.2 GHz lunchbox computer.

 

You're bringing up valid cost/benefit scenarios. Nobody denies those needs. Most of just realize the constraints and understand that most personal users think they need a faster computer than reality necessitates. Which is why we try to save people some money.

 

"You're bringing up valid cost/benefit scenarios. Nobody denies those needs. Most of just realize the constraints and understand that most personal users think they need a faster computer than reality necessitates. Which is why we try to save people some money."

Thank you for acknolwedging that. I think that people with those concerns should buy from another vender because traditionally Thinkpad had not had to deal with those issues and consequently it had become a technical machine now it's become a lay machine.

So I suggest that people put their collective hads together towards talking about this. Those people who are opposed are welcome to voice that opposition.

On the list of things to talk about is "growth room". I admit that my professional experience has been on machines where variety would be encountered in the form of compute mix and demand. Personal machines may not be as varied. Mine is. By the way I run Windows 7 on the t61p and on a desktop extreme with an SSD and thats my baseline.

Renee

 

"Which is why we try to save people some money."

See, this doesn't compute for me since we were single vendor and we wrote the OS. I don't try and save money because I believe firmly that "I pay for what I get."

Renee

 

Thinkpad was this elitist machine (this is also why many people couldn't afford it), but IBM didn't make enough money out of them and year on year financial losses doesn't bode well with the shareholders. So Lenovo took up the challenge, and retained what thinkpads are generally about (quality, good service and subtle design) and tried to sell it to a border audience.

Obviously, if want Lenovo to make it this elitist machine that you all remembered it to be in the hayday, then i think each of these proponents should go out and purchase 20 machines.

Lenovo like all company needs to turn a profit in all the business ventures, and computers for most part is the main business venture for Lenovo, either it do well or be prepared to go down the path of Digitial or Compaq.....

 

There are signicant complications to the story. In addition to the Thinkpad, IBM also developed it's own 32 bit OS called OS/2. The OS agreement was signed in 1985 which many claim was better than Windows. The business chalenges get to be signficant. To make a long story short, IBM didn't make it with the os but they did the Thinkpad.

"either it do well or be prepared to go down the path of Digitial or Compaq....."

Digital lasted for fifty years and I worked for them for 30 years. Digital did go down the tubes. But we had a president whom was just wrong and hated PCs. We failed too and were bought by Compact who was bought by HP.

Renee

 

It may have lasted 50 years, but you got to be in it to win, and it is no longer in it, so it is not even a contender in the race. Also, the last 50 years of computer industry is quite different to the next 50 years of industry. Computers were a high tech products, now it is nothing more than a commodity. Most of the manufacturing/assembly are no longer done in house, nor are the parts made in house, all of which have been contracted.

So market pressure means that computer industry must adapt to the changing consumer behaviour, or face the backlash of non-loyal customer base, whom would quite happily put their dollars down for the next contender.

So what most people buy from a laptop company are just branding, marketing, service quality, external casing design and software supports, etc. All the electronics maybe from the same production line, or even the laptops from different companies could be made by the same contract manufacturers.

 

Lead_org,

That's analysis yes, there no doubt about it. BUT it's only financial analysis which I have made a vow not to care about. As such it is off topic because of what this forum is about. There are still processors and other cpu systems that you finance people need in order to have something to sell, assuming a capitalistic system.
Renee

 

I am not a finance person by trade. I don't think chemical engineers like myself should care about finance, but reality is that without money many things are just not possible. I think no doubt that you are made aware what benefits some money in the bank account can do for your daily life.

You only have to look at the list on your left of the screen (most viewed laptops), it just shows you that it is not the most expensive laptops that people are now interested. But rather low to middle range laptops, especially the netbooks.

 

I've always looked at it from a certain perspective --a good example of this is to look at hard drives or boxed processors on NewEgg.

Start at the bottom end, where things are cheap. The first several steps you go above that are usually relatively small price increases, but you get more for not much more cash. As you go up you get some features which may be important to you (e.g., higher FSB, hardware virtualization, or more cache in the case of processors). However, at some point the price jumps become much higher, and since performance increases rarely (if ever) scale completely linearly with price increases, at some point you have a sweet spot, followed by diminishing returns.

I've always been the one to go for the sweet spot, or just above it. I decide which features I need to have as well, so I don't compromise (e.g., Intel vT). I also decide what I can do now with the machine, and make sure I have a little headroom so I can own the unit for a time of not less than two years (exception: My SO now has my T61 after one year, but that's not because of CPU, but because I fine-tuned what my needs in other areas were), and possibly as long as three.

When I spec out for others, my first question is ALWAYS this: "What do you want to do with the machine?" I don't cookie-cutter something out that most tech people would find good --I find what is going to be good for the person in question. My second question is "Are your needs going to be static or will they change over the next few years?" Some people will always be a web/word processing/pictures of my kids type, and nothing else. Others are always excited by new kinds of software and technology, and with fluid needs usually comes the need for a system with a bit more headroom.

One point I believe you made Renee, is that today's processors are far more powerful than ever before. What that means is that even a mid-end Core 2 Duo can spank a Pentium-M 2GHz from a few years back. Today's mid-end processors are capable of doing a huge number of things that earlier ones could not, and they can do most of the things high-end CPUs can; it just takes them a bit longer. For that reason, a mid-end CPU does work for many, and often, more performance is found in making sure a machine has 4GB of RAM and a reasonably performing hard drive.

P.S. I hope to own my T400 long enough to see DDR3 prices drop to the point where I can max it to 8GB without spending an arm and a leg. I can dream, can't I?

 

Lonewolf a true Chairman Meow's disciple....

 

I love both of you.
Renee

 

Don't tempt me, Renee.

 

Maybe the bias is real, but is only half the story. As a person actively engaged in the search for a new laptop, I am generally surprised at what seems to be blatant price gouging for anything above than the middle-of-the-road processors. A 5 or even 10% boost in CPU power shouldnt change the cost of your entire laptop by 20%.

 

It's not necessarily about profit --it's about yield.

Unless the yields are so good at the fab that every CPU makes top grades, it's often the case that less CPUs make the grade at higher clock speeds, and are binned as lower speed processors. When yields aren't as good at top speeds, it creates a supply-and-demand problem, resulting in disproportionately high costs at the top-end; costs which are then passed on to the consumer.

 

If price markup was purely based on yield, then the price should only increase by by about half as much as they charge now. They know that the early adopters are willing to buy the product regardless of the price. The price differentiation between high end and mid end products, also allows the high end products to remain exclusive for the performance buyer market. This works similarily to the luxury cloth, handbag and car markets. What is the point of you spending 1000 dollars CPU, when everyone else has it, while the 5% slower CPU only costs 200 dollars.

 

"One point I believe you made Renee, is that today's processors are far more powerful than ever before. What that means is that even a mid-end Core 2 Duo can spank a Pentium-M 2GHz from a few years back. Today's mid-end processors are capable of doing a huge number of things that earlier ones could not, and they can do most of the things high-end CPUs can; it just takes them a bit longer. For that reason, a mid-end CPU does work for many, and often, more performance is found in making sure a machine has 4GB of RAM and a reasonably performing hard drive."

I agree. This desktop Extreme is older but it also has a Crucial SSD on it, making it difficult to justify replacing it.

Renee

 

Heck, I can't justify replacing the guts of my custom Q6600 desktop. I've got it pretty much as I want it, and I'd have to get a new mainboard, DDR3 RAM, a new CPU, and new heatsink/fan. And, it still does everything I need.

 

Rarely if ever are products priced based on the cost of production.

Lead_org has a more accurate assessment. Prices are almost always based on how much the market is willing to pay. This is Business school 101.

What is really laggin behind is our software. Seriously, think about how much our applications changed from 1990 to 2000. We went from text UIs to Office 2000.

From 2000 to 2010 we've gotten.... the Ribbon UI. Seriously, my text editor should be able to write short stories for me by now. Software developers need to get on the ball. or Microsoft should be allowed to become a monopoly again because no one else seems to be able to replicate the breakneck pace of the 90s.

 

I'm not sure how much more we can really do with an Office suite. And since I've never really liked the Ribbon...

I agree that prices are based on market willingness too, but only a small percentage are willing to buy the xx-Ultimate-Extreme-Hardcore-Platinum edition. I myself didn't even buy my Q6600 until I could get one used for reasonable cost. I think the only CPU I ever spent top-dollar for was the AMD K6-233, back in my young and foolish days (Remember when the top-end CPU was a "paltry" $400? )

I agree too that there's only so much software development driving the market. There are only a few areas where CPUs are pushed to their limit.

 

My .02,

There isn't a bias toward mid-range processors - there's a bias toward not flushing money down the toilet.

Your drive is the performance "limit" in your laptop. I would rather spend $200 on a Intel X-25 SSD than $200 on a high-end processor, as the performance with the SSD would be, in real world tasks, faster.

For 80% of people, a low-end dual core is fine. Mid-range is fine for those running VMs or some specialized apps.

The high end processors are basically not worth it - you are funding Intel R&D and basically are doing it for bragging rights.

Bias? Sure. Bias toward getting best bang for the buck.

 

Bragging rights??? That's the second time the term has come up. People run benchmarks or computer tests. People also live and die by them. I made about 10 years on them. Bragging is what a non-professional person does with a fast personal computer- a bench mark is a test that measures something.

Renee

 

"There isn't a bias toward mid-range processors - there's a bias toward not flushing money down the toilet.

Your drive is the performance "limit" in your laptop. I would rather spend $200 on a Intel X-25 SSD than $200 on a high-end processor, as the performance with the SSD would be, in real world tasks, faster.

For 80% of people, a low-end dual core is fine. Mid-range is fine for those running VMs or some specialized apps.

The high end processors are basically not worth it - you are funding Intel R&D and basically are doing it for bragging rights.

Bias? Sure. Bias toward getting best bang for the buck."

That's a consideration of the pro's and I may say that lenovo traditionally has not been a place where that issue came up. This is not a conversation for the budget minded. Commercial people of course care about how much something costs - at the same time they are interested in having a job done in a certain time.

To be honest, I don't care about "80% of the people" as far as their choice of computers are concerned.

Renee

 

Well.. to counter that, synthetic benchmarks DO NOT represent real world usage more times than do. For the average user of computers, synthetic benchmarks mean nothing to them, it is only if there is "noticeable" improvements that, by their logic, they will pay the extra money for a better processor or anything in general. Benchmarks usually represent a processors "potential", a benchmarking software is optimized to stress every single aspect of the component being tested so as to get an accurate score, most mainstream software is not optimized for a fraction of what modern dual core processors can do, look at the switch from 2 to 4 cores, benchmarks of the quad core were higher than the dual core at same clock speed, but real world performance is hardly improved for mainstream applications, that cannot really use more than 2 cores for much. If you did not buy the highest configurable processor aware that you could "brag" then what do you do on your T61p that required such a "jump" in performance from say a T7700? If you believe that you get what you pay for, why don't you pop a Core 2 Extreme X9000 in there, it is possible, a guy in another forum with a T61p did it. Not sure how his heatsink fares with it but still.

 

Thinkpad_knows_best,

Do you have anything to add? I don't feel as if a comment like that warrants a response.

Renee

 

Renee, I think you would be taken much more seriously/legitimately if you dropped the "superior to you" attitude. Honestly, you've made quite a few possibly offensive and condescending replies in this thread, which make discussion so much more confrontational than it should or needs to be.

I mean, we know you are a computing professional with many years of experience, but so are many other members on NBR. You respect us, we respect you.

 

I think we've exhausted this.

 

I like your line of thought. I would like to purchase a Dell Alieanware because I like them. I am not a gamer,but would like a fast notebook to do editing of photos. Here is what I have in mind. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
17
i7 820
6GB DDR3 ram
500GB 7200rpm hd

Plus the usual. For me any thing more than this is over kill. What does anyone think?

 

I'm not sure what pont you are trying to make.

If you want to waste money, fine. People do it every day buying Intel over AMD.

Unless you are running a computational specialized apps, CPU's today well outstrips what you could use. It's not an "80%" argument, it's a 99.999% fact. And disk technology is the biggest laggard (along with OS).

If you want to waste money, that's your prerogative. It's not a budget-minded issue.

Again, not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

Wow such a long thread and the conversation went absolutely no where.

I wouldn't necessarily say that there's a bias towards midrange processors, but more about it being common sense.

Most people don't have the means to spend more than what they are going to use, if that wasn't the case we'd all be driving Ferraris.

If you need the 10% increase in performance for the 50% increase in price and have the money to burn and software to take advantage of it, then by all means splurge.

But overall, its not just this forum, but nearly every tech forum out there that talks about bang for buck.

Bang for buck is what determines nearly everything you buy, not just processors.

 

I think this thread would be taken more seriously if it had a point.......

 

Renee.. why would you not respond to it? Why wouldn't you put an X9000 in your T61p if you are so gun ho and adamant that you get what you pay for and that it is such a future proof machine? Nothing is totally future-proof, people said that going dual core was futureproof, and to an extent it has been, but soon dual core will be either replaced by quad core mainstream processors, then, perhaps even quantum computing.

 

Please share with us who ""lives and dies" by benchmarks. Marketing dept of CPU makers? Sales people? Benchmarks measure something, true. Whether there is value in what is measured is what counts.

And drop the attitude - it is not professional. Professionals brag all the time about stuff.

 

Of course, of course, I'm well aware from your previous contributions, but I'm usually too lazy to be politically correct when it comes to trivial pursuits.

Ok, if I understand your point correctly, then you're saying your qualms with the bias here is that it does not appropriately focus on longevity of a Thinkpad and that the turnover rate to a new system is much too fast.

But when you say "People here do not configure them to last." I'm curious to know which people you're referring to? The average user or the corporate professional?

In case of the average user, which is the majority of the people on this forum, I have to ask, how much longer will the high end processor serve me in the long run IF my notebook needs do not change, or will it even out-serve the mid-range processor at all? There is a $375.00 price difference between the P8700 and the T9900. If I get the T9900, is my Thinkpad going to last years longer at running Firefox, MS office, Windows media player, MSN/AIM/Skype etc? I really don't think it is and it certainly doesn't warrant a $375.00 price increase, unless I have some sort of high end needs for my Thinkpad, otherwise to me, and to many others, that is just superfluous. Maybe this wasn't the case years ago but nowadays, technological hardware advancement is well ahead of operating needs. I don't think you or anyone else can adequately assess the T9900 as out-living the P8700 when it comes to simple notebook tasks.

And from what I understand from your previous posts, you're saying that benchmarking is key. Benchmarking is the industry standard in assessing performance. Also, and do correct me if I'm wrong here, your previous sentiment was that cost is not an issue, especially in the corporate world. In which case, I really have to ask, if a corporate user is worried about nothing more than benchmarks, then isn't THAT going to advocate the frequency of resale and pre-sale that you were mentioning? Even if I do configure the best system today to last me a really long time, there will be cheaper, faster, and better technology available tomorrow that will benchmark better.

If anything, I feel that mid-range users are keeping their systems much longer than anyone else, a point well made by many posts on this forum detailing the 5year+ relationship with their Thinkpad.

I have a Dell Inspiron 5100 from 2003. It still runs Firefox, Office, and Windows media player, and plays games like Zero Hour, Desert Combat, Call of Duty, MOHAA, etc. At the time, I configured it as a mediocre configuration. It was not something to win benchmarks. Had I worked for big pharm, I'm sure they would've traded it in for a new one by 2005 at the latest.

And Renee I hear what you're saying, but I really think it applies to a very small percentage of people and you happen to be in that group. After 2,000 thread views, you're still the only one advocating this argument, which I think is at least a somewhat fair assessment of how many other users fit under your category. I fail to see how it can be called a forum bias when people with the needs that you describe, are so few in number (at least on this forum) while there is no shortage of average users here.

 

I'm going to quietly close this thread. A lot of arguing has started and as noted, the topic is exhausted.