Early adopter?

Well..usually when new stuff hits the market it is not only very expensive, but it has yet to prove it can stand the test of time, benchmarks and technical info do serve a purpose and can definitely sway your decision one way or the other.
I usually wait for awhile on completely new products, or if they are just upgraded versions I will move to the last known well manufactured, proven to work component available. The price is usually much more reasonable and your still probably way ahead of most using the same product..Take PC's as an example..I still have friends using the old P 166's and that isnt uncommon..

I would say wait, allow the product to come down in price as well as prove itself in durability and functionality..

Thats my personal opinion and no way reflects or copies the opinion of any others..LoL

Take Care,
Zero.

I usually buy once the price has dropped by at least 1/3 which amounts to 6 months to 1 year after a new processor comes out or other big development. I try to keep systems as long as they stay useful. I have a 350Mhz PII that serves as a word processor for our staff biologist. (Don't want him getting the great outdoors all over a good computers) I have a 450Mhz that is a plotter server. Most all the staff has a least an 850mhz. It really depends on needs. The CAD stations NEED to be high performance (lots of ram and 1.8Mhz or better) Personally, the last 2 years I've moved over to Laptops.

Wait a year,then go out and buy last year's top of the crop at 1/3 of price with extra goodies and better support.

Thank you guys for your postings. I agree 100%. In personal level i can't afford the new staff until the prices are down AND are been tested.
At work level, well it has to do with Managment expenses and user needs. I still keep some of the computer i manage to 450's or 350's at work and that's because they are printer servers.
Anyways, i think that if a computer (even a 1 Ghz, or 850 Mhz) does the job keep it as long as it can. If the video card is OK for what you do then thats great.
But, and there is always a but, what do you do when users are complaning that their computers are sooooooo slow? How do you explain to them, in simple words, that theirs are ok without been a 'wet blanket' or something? If you stand by your knowledge then you become the 'no-team-player' or worse. So do you 'cross over' to early adopter in the work enviroment, or just stand to your opinion until the right time?

::looks around for the people management expert, isnt at all one himself so he just keeps his trap shut:: LoL

Zero.

ChaosMachine - I tell them that I still have a 386 with 1 mb of Video Ram and 8 mb of Ram that's needing a little up time to keep it working. Works almost every time.

Thanks for the tip Lantec. Can i use it also? And by the way, i wish i had my old 386. I would love to take all the memory chips out! Just for the fun of it. (A voice on the background: CRUELTY TO COMPUTERS!!! ARGGG!!). What who me? Nooooo!!

.....additionally, I suspect that the function of one perception imposing the sense of urgency on the another might, at a neurological level, excite some version of the 'flight or fight' response which is very basic.  This enhances the physical perception of time passing very slowly.  To counter that you might explore some mental relaxation techniques or explore some work-space variables to the frustration... Are people anxious to get their work done in time to leave for the night, for a smoke break?  Do they feel they are overburdoned with the amount of work they are expected to do so that they perceive any delay at all to threaten their sense of adequacy?  You might accomplish much to explore these issues.

You have a point there goodmorphing. In a buisness level people are perciving time differently depending the stress there are under. As IT support we never been tought to take in considerention the physiological aspect of things. I agree that it does play role on the demand for new and faster hardware. Some times faster computers are the mana from heaven, or that's what users think. But unfortunatelly Managment can't take this into account. It doesn't stands well in the annual expenses reports under 'Reasons for upgrade'
Thanks for the article links. I will have a look.

That remindes me of my Project Managment and Quality Assurance courses. It is true you need to get in depth analysis some times to do your job, but unfortunatelly 'un-proffesional' approach from higher up quiclky eleminates any efford. Also if you are by yourself and you can't get support from users and/or managment then there is no need to try to improve. Except if you love what you do.

That's true.  But if you understand what drives people, you can present your ideas in a way that they can integrate (or at least in a way that offers you least resistance).  For instance, if 'speed is defined by expectations', then you can present your ideas in a way that shapes their expectations.

 

I sold an old 386 (bought it 2 damned days before pentium come out! ) a while ago and it worked great (Win 3.1 WAS better than 98 ), except that the CD-ROM was blown. Oh well, they are what, like $20 to replace?

You are right meowy. I don't recall having problems with the older operating system that much, except correct memory handling. That was a bit dodgy. The CD-Roms now, yeah about that price.
Goodmorphing, i understand what you mean. But there is another question there. In a working enviroment, what is the human based benchmark to use as a rule? The slowest worker or the fastest? A slowest may 'demand' to have something that will make him/her faster, and the fastest may say no need for that.