InformationWeek
Defining The Business Value Of Technology
October 6, 1999
How Fast Is Fast Enough?| Threads |
| If you're replacing machines in your organization, what's the minimum step-up for your users to feel that they're getting something better? How do you determine the trade-off between purely technical needs and the slippery realm of user satisfaction? Does the "wow" effect matter? At what point do you declare old machines obsolete? Join in! Join in the discussion! |
| Recent Columns |
|
The Rise Of Snoopware More Windows Than Fleas On A Dog |
| Bio |
| Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows Magazine. Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe@langa.com. You can contact him at fred@langa.com or via his website at http://www.langa.com. |
Have you ever had a real, rock-you-back-on-your-heels, "wow" moment with a PC? You know, when you saw something so unexpected or fast or dazzling that you were literally astonished?
In this jaded age, those moments seem to come further and further apart. But I certainly remember one of my first: It was the day, years ago, when I traded in my original 4.77-MHz IBM PC-XT for a 10-MHz "Turbo" PC from a company called PC's Limited--the company that later became Dell Computer.
With a press of that wondrous Turbo switch, I had at my fingertips what previously was possible only via overclocking or other hacker-esque exploits: I could double the speed of my machine. It was awesome.
I also remember, some years later, when I first saw an accelerated graphics card. Same effect: Wow!
Today, I'm typing this column on a 550-MHz Pentium III. With four foreground applications and nine background applications running, the System Monitor application tells me I'm using all of 13% of the CPU's cycles. Yes, I easily can spike the CPU use to 100%, and when I'm doing something really computationally intense, the system is noticeably faster than the Pentium II 400-MHz model that it replaced. But for all that, using the system is not a "wow" experience.
This system also has an AGP, 3-D graphics card with 32 MB of video RAM and a graphics coprocessor so beefy that it needs its own cooling fan. But for all that graphics power, I can only see a visible difference over my previous card in a few limited (and mostly non-business) applications. And at that, it's more of a "that's nice" than a "wow."
User studies and my own empirical observations indicate that average users don't even notice system speed increases of less than about 20%. Attuned, savvy users can see about a 15% difference. Experts and computer professionals (e.g. professional reviewers or others focused on the hardware and software itself) can see 5% to 10% differences. Below that, everyone needs a stopwatch to detect any difference.
And those figures indicate only that the speed difference is perceptible--not that it rates a "wow." My guess is that you need something in excess of a 50% increase to even begin to encroach on "wow" territory.
In a company setting, the goal isn't to distribute "wow" PCs per se, but it is important for users to be happy with their systems and to see their systems as aids rather than impediments. The answer to finding the right system is partly technological (how fast is fast enough for the job at hand?), and it's also partly psychological (what will make users feel good about using the system; what will predispose users to a positive experience?). With the unprecedented range of desktop-systems powers and prices today--from $200 to about $6000--these are not easy questions to answer.
For example, an ancient 486 box may in technical reality be perfectly adequate for someone doing basic word processing and light surfing--but whoever gets that box will feel like a second-class (or maybe third-class) user. The downside in employee satisfaction is probably not worth the relative few dollars saved in avoiding the modest cost of a new PC. (You can get a brand-new 333-MHz box for under $450.)
For existing desktop hardware, I think that 266-MHz is about as low and slow as any business should go today; machines slower than that can be put in special service (print servers, etc.) sold, or donated to charity, and replaced with newer and faster machines.
For new hardware, I think about 400-MHz is a reasonable minimum, entry-level speed: This is adequate for just about any application, and (assuming the system has a decent amount of RAM) will even run next-generation operating systems such as Windows 2000 reasonably well. So a 400-MHz box shouldn't become obsolete anytime soon.
But what's your take? If you're replacing machines in your organization, what's the minimum step-up for your users to feel that they're getting something better? How do you determine the trade-off between purely technical needs and the slippery realm of user satisfaction? Does the "wow" effect matter? At what point do you declare old machines obsolete? What standards do you use for specing new hardware? Join in the discussion!
