Dell xps 13 from Best Buy; here we go again

[fox]

Technically, your Grade 11 lesson would be deficient if implemented mathematically as you illustrated earlier because it does not consider the present value of the money invested in year 1, five years later. But that doesnââ,¬â,,¢t change the principle point about capital cost being different from continuous cost. 

I would also point out that not every capital cost is worthwhile, and in my opinion, you CAN buy too much RAM, storage, etc. One can buy my xps 13 model with 32 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD if willing to pay another $500 or more over what I paid. I wouldnââ,¬â,,¢t do that even though $500 extra amounts to only $8/month (not taking PV into consideration). This might be a small amount relative to my monthly internet bill, but if you think that way for all of your purchases, you are going to be spending a lot of money for not much benefit. In my case, I would get no extra benefit from additional RAM and storage, and I forecast that a laptop with 16 GB of soldered in RAM with a 512 GB upgradable SSD will be a very saleable item if I want to sell it 5 years later.

[buster]

I omitted Present Value to keep it as simple as possible.

[William]

I omitted Present Value to keep it as simple as possible.

Good thing, too.  Show me an investment that gives you the discount rate typically used in PV calculation.  Nowadays, "present value" means "what do I need now", and that's what you buy (plus alpha).

[fox]

What is "plus alpha", William?

[Jason]

On whether you might want 16 gig ram in the future, it's always been my belief that you can never have too much storage, too much speed with your CPU, and too much ram. You can certainly have too little.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm sure you don't buy the computer with the biggest hard drive, the fastest CPU and the highest amount of RAM. You look at your budget, and what you actually need, perhaps with a buffer, and get something to meet your needs.

In 5 years, maybe 3, 16 GB of RAM might be necessary for everyone, but for now, most people don't come close to using all that. My computer what used when I got it (for free) and it's about 10 years old. But it's plenty fast for for how I use it and I rarely use half the RAM, although storage is starting to get tight. But adding to that is easy and cheap.

Storage can change quickly over time (programs can grow a lot over a few years), but you still don't want to buy 2 TB of storage if you're only using 100 GB now. You can upgrade that easily and it'll be a lot cheaper when you do.

Of course, if you're not an average user, say, you do video editing or run 100+ browser tabs and 15+ heavy programs at the same time, then you'll need more RAM, maybe even 32 GB.

Buy whatever is reasonable now and buffer that for the next few years or however much you plan to use the computer and you'll be fine. One way of seeing what is reasonable now is by taking whatever capacity, speed, etc. and dividing it by one base rate. Buy whichever is more inexpensive, in this case, the 3.6 GHz CPU.

[fox]

....
Buy whatever is reasonable now and buffer that for the next few years or however much you plan to use the computer and you'll be fine. One way of seeing what is reasonable now is by taking whatever capacity, speed, etc. and dividing it by one base rate. Buy whichever is more inexpensive, in this case, the 3.6 GHz CPU.

Well you stumped me on this one, Jason; I wasn't familiar with the term "base rate". How would you apply it in this case? Would the base rate be the proportion of people who can get by with x amount of RAM, storage, etc.? Or would it be the proportion of people that have this amount of RAM, storage, etc. on their computer in the year you buy? Or something else?

[buster]

Buster said, and that's me: "it's always been my belief that you can never have too much storage, too much speed with your CPU, and too much ram. You can certainly have too little."

I still believe that, but my few computer purchases are always tempered by my lack of funds. I would spend much more if I weren't a poor pensioner. I feel the same way about wine. Good wines are better than poor wines, but I still don't buy them very often. There's always a distinction between what's best, and what my wife allows me to spend.

The few computers I have purchased rather than built from donated parts are expected to last a decade, so more is good - more speed, more ram. But I don't go all out. It's a balancing act.

I will still support the idea that curbing our recurring costs, cigarettes, Fridays at the pub, expensive phone plans, does far more good than worrying about a capital cost like $100. And similarly, putting aside a percentage of every paycheck and investing it has a mammoth effect over time.

[Jason]

Well you stumped me on this one, Jason; I wasn't familiar with the term "base rate". How would you apply it in this case? Would the base rate be the proportion of people who can get by with x amount of RAM, storage, etc.? Or would it be the proportion of people that have this amount of RAM, storage, etc. on their computer in the year you buy? Or something else?

Here's an example.

Let's say you're choosing which hard drive is the better value. And let's say, you can get a 500 GB (going to use TB in the calculation) drive for $50 or a 1 TB drive for $75 or a 2 TB drive for $300.

$50 / 0.5 TB = $100 per TB
$75 / 1 = $75 per TB
$300 / 2 TB = $150 per TB

Clearly, your money is going further to buy the middle model. You could also choose ahead of time, what you're willing to pay
for each TB of storage, what I meant by "base rate". For example, you're only willing to pay $100/TB and not a cent more. The only one that is lower than your rate but still the best value is still the 1 TB drive.

Unlike buying groceries, the price doesn't necessarily go down per item with the more you buy. At any given time, the best value sits between the highest storage drive and the lowest.

With laptops, there are other factors since more laptops are choosing the soldered-on route so you can't change the amount of RAM later. But with a desktop, you're almost always better off waiting until you actually need the RAM.

Your "lack of funds" only serves to prove my point. Up to a certain point, you can always upgrade later for more RAM and it'll be cheaper than what you paid for initially.

And good wines are likely no better than "bad" cheaper wines. The average person likely wouldn't notice. Check on YouTube for a Penn & Teller series called "Bullshit".

[buster]

"And good wines are likely no better than "bad" cheaper wines."

Price doesn't define quality. I can name some wines that cost more because of advertising and bottles, a New Zealand sauv blanc that we used to buy before it got bought out by huge corporation for example. Then prices went up and quality went down. But many wouldn't notice the difference I suspect.

But there does tend to be a correlation between wonderful wines and higher prices. I would suggest that people who say there's no difference between most wines just do not have the palate for wine. And this isn't a crime. But to me it's like saying all women are equally attractive, which is only true if you've been on a desert island by yourself for 5 years. But there is definitely a difference.

Please note I said attractive. Some beautiful women aren't attractive at all.

[ssfc72]

So Fox, how is your new Dell XPS working?
Has the battery capacity improved to more than the 92% it had, at first?

[fox]

I'm embarrassed to say that I completely forgot about the 92% capacity of the battery. I'm on the road now without the laptop (I only take an iPad when I travel), so I can't check it. What I can say is that battery life on that computer is great, even if the battery is still only 92% of new capacity. I'll try to remember to check it when I get back.

[ssfc72]

Ok Mike. You got yourself a nice notebook computer. A recent model Dell XPS with 16G ram and an i7 cpu, nice.
This was from a reseller on Best Buy?

On my Dell XPS 13 which was manufactured in 2017,  MXLinux is showing the battery has a 94% capacity.

[fox]

Sorry I missed this when you posted it. The Dell I bought was from Best Buy, itself, not a BB reseller. I'm quite happy with it.