Convince me to buy the SP4 despite so many issues

[raqball]

Always buy as much memory as you can afford. In this case, its definitely worth the $200 to go 8GB/256

Not always entirely true.. I view it as a waste of money if you know for a fact you don't need it..

I could have afforded the i7 and 16GB RAM but I purchased the core M with 4GB RAM..

1. I use it as a tablet 90% of the time
2. I've never kept a computer for longer than a year. I always upgrade and want new toys.
3. For my use, I have not even came close to using up the 4GB that came on the core M so far..

It's not always as cut & dry as buy as much as you can afford...

 

[maxx7]

"This is a fact. We just don't have evidence for it."

You do realize that, if that's the best evidence that you are putting forward (a study with 10 participants where the difference was only 20-30%, ie. 2-3 people's perception, where it may not have been blinded), even if it were true, we have no reason to believe that flickering lights have a health impact on people who are not overly sensitive. Until we have a rigorous study on the effects of flickering lights, all we have are highly flawed anecdotes. For example, I saw a 1989 study about lights in a workplace(s) where changing the lights to higher frequency fluorescent bulbs reduced headaches (Fluorescent lighting, headaches and eyestrain - need a subscription to view the full paper)... but merely changing anything in a workplace, EVEN CHANGING IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS, can lead to workers feeling and working better. This is called the Hawthorne Effect where the attention of a concerned observer leads to positive effects (Hawthorne effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). In other cases, people in studies unconsciously change their behaviour or feelings based on what they think the experiment is about, which is the Demand Effect (Demand characteristics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

So no, it's not that we "do not have very good brains": it's that there isn't any good evidence to suggest that flickering lights have a negative health effect on the majority of people in the population. Even personally, I've worked in an office where we had a defective fluorescent bulb where we could literally see the rapid flickering. It was annoying as hell for the 2 weeks we put up with it but none of us had complained about headaches.

Yes, the science is not perfect yet, as I stated. No need to start educating people on Hawthorne effect - this is a well known topic. Or placebo or what ever statistical calculations on could have etc. The point is that there is both anecdotal and scientific evidence to suggest that flickering displays are not good for some people. It would be not completely outrageous to think that everyone might be affected as some level.

But still, whether everyone is affected, does not really matter, the question is, why manufacturers continue to use cheap PWM technology to dim a LED screen, as it as well could be done without PWM, thus nobody would have issues with it. Let me give you this example - Radon radiation at homes - it is known to cause cancer and houses are being build so that there would be as little as possible radon radiation. We know that only few people will get cancer, if there is a lot of it, but we still try to regulate it and build houses so that there would not be too much of it. Manufacturers are saying now "as the PWM is causing noticeable problems to only a few people, let's not do anything about it"

And in the end, if you do not have a problem with it, why involve yourself? It does not have any negative effect on you, if manufacturers someday will stop using PWM in all devices, instead of just some of them.

 

[robertcan]

Not always entirely true.. I view it as a waste of money if you know for a fact you don't need it.. It's not always as cut & dry as buy as much as you can afford...

Agreed. It's not always cut and dry as my original statement. We all have our own value proposition and that's all the OP is really asking us to share. For me, investing the $200 has value and serves as insurance supporting future needs, but we all have limits.

I think it also depends on how long you tend to keep your gear. I have a 9 year old iMac that's still in service, used primarily by my daughter. Buying as much machine as I could afford back then has kept this machine in service much longer. Since I tend to keep my gear for many years, I have to weigh time and money against future need.

As I mentioned before, we all have our own value proposition. I can afford the i7 SB but instead chose the i5 8GB/256 SP4 because it's more bang for the buck. So I guess I just proved your point

 

[nuttyone]

As I mentioned before, we all have our own value proposition. I can afford the i7 SB but instead chose the i5 8GB/256 SP4 because it's more bang for the buck. So I guess I just proved your point

I agree completely with this last sentence in particular. The $/£s saved with going for the i5/256GB will go towards Christmas gifts for my friends/family and my PS4.

On an additional note for the topic, since the latest push of updates from MS, I must say I have noticed a dramatic decrease in issues/bugs and crashes. Don't like to tempt fate, but just mentioning a fact