"<i>But it's probably not the processor that accounts for most of the speed increase I've seen in my machine. The main help, I think, comes from the hard drive.</i>"<p>He's totally right about using an SSD as the boot disk, I can't overstate how much of a difference it makes, more than RAM, CPU or anything else. I've been using one for a while and it made my secondhand 3-4 year old macbook pro go from <i>barely usable for design work</i> to <i>screaming top of the line</i>.<p>I'm probably going to switch to a hybrid drive soon though, like the 500GB Momentus XT that comes with a 4GB SSD glued on. The big drawbacks of using a pure SSD as a boot disk are that you'll either 1) run out of space on the SSD and/or 2) forced to keep the data on a slower separate drive, assuming that you're going with a moderately priced one and not spending a gazillion dollars for one of the big ones with a lot of capacity. #2 might not matter to the OP because he said he upgraded his rig just for the web browsing, but designers like me routinely load up and work with large files, so I still get the beach ball every time Fireworks tries to open a file or save it. This is where I differ from the OP and the Jeff Atwood article he linked to: <i>I'd rather put all of my data on just as fast a disk as the one with the OS and apps</i>. The slowdown in opening large files is super annoying after you've gotten used to the near instant times for booting the OS and starting up apps.<p>If I had one of the newer MBPs that came with a SATA interface for the optical drive (instead of IDE like mine), I'd seriously consider splurging and going with Stammy's dual RAID SSD setup:<p><a href="http://paulstamatiou.com/how-to-apple-macbook-pro-raid-0-array-with-2-intel-x25-m-ssds" rel="nofollow">http://paulstamatiou.com/how-to-apple-macbook-pro-raid-0-arr...</a><p>Even though I can't use it for RAID, I'm still going to swap out the optical drive for an older IDE-compatible MCE optibay with a generic 500GB drive just for backups with time machine and super duper. That way I can ditch the pocket drive I've been carrying around this whole year and leave it at home for nightly backups.
Processor is hardly worth paying for top of the line.<p>I bought the new 15" MBP that was released this year with 2.4Ghz i5, and put 8GB plus an Intel X-25 SSD in there. Compared to my 2009 MBP w/ 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB and HDD, it's a bigger speed difference than I've ever gotten in any upgrade ever. Definitely worth paying 40x for the drive space.<p>It's not that the top speed is faster... it's just that the beach ball is <i>gone</i>. It's always responsive. I can be running test suites for a couple Rails apps, watching an HD movie, and browser testing IE6/7/8 in 3 Parallels VMs and it's always snappy. I'm totally spoiled for computers with the OS on an HD. Using my wife's new MacBook for 30 seconds starts to make my blood pressure rise.
I purposefully use an outdated (3-5 years off the top of the line) machine to ensure my web applications run well on anybody using a similarly outdated configuration. I've considered upgrading and using a VM to emulate this, but I'm not quite sure it'd have the same effect. I've found that what I have is "good enough" to work on, but "not good enough" to run overly demanding javascript and DOM riddled pages without noticing.
Ya know what helps a <i>lot</i>?<p>Reinstalling the OS (edit: from scratch. ie, format the drive + install). I make a point to do so at least once per year. OSX has aged <i>significantly</i> more gracefully than Windows, despite having several times as many files (approached 3 million near the end), but a two-year-old install (I slacked) is <i>nothing</i> like a fresh one. Especially noticeable: Spotlight actually finds what I'm looking for in less than a second again (vs upwards of a minute or more).<p>It also highlights the differences between the OSes: OSX handles loads and loads of applications at the same time with significantly less slowdown and zero waiting on the UI. Windows launches and handles a single application <i>much</i> more quickly, but it's not uncommon to wait a significant amount of time for a single click to register if I launch a couple large ones at once. Just today I've had to sit for a couple minutes because a large compile+launch decided to happen at the same time as a browser crash and an application auto-updating. Win 7 utterly stopped responding, except for my mouse cursor's movement.<p>edit: to all repliers suggesting Linux: yes it does, if you consider reinstalling to be "reinstalling from scratch", which was what I had meant (though not stated, apologies). Every OS slows with extensions + libraries + millions of files + hundreds of compiled applications, and I'm likely a bit of an edge case anyway. I pretty easily install 1000+ applications per year for experimenting, many of which add extra cruft that no uninstaller removes completely.
What this guy doesn't realize is that all the extra speed he's enjoying is probably mostly a function of his new computer having a brand new Windows 7 install on it, that hasn't been crufted up by all the various crap that eventually gets installed on it and slows everything down. If he had just reformatted and installed a fresh Windows install on his old machine, he'd be enjoying virtually the same "speed boost."
What will help even more is becoming a bit more organized. Having 200 tabs open simultaneously sounds like a lot of lost effort to me. Learn to use bookmarks, history and especially the smart bookmark & history search available in the address bars of Firefox and Chrome, and you won't need to upgrade the PC just to support messiness.
"Will I ever outgrow my speed demon of a computer? At this point it's hard for me to see how. Even at my peak usage, my processor never goes above 10 percent capacity, and most of the time I'm using just 1 or 2 percent. I'm confident this rig will last me at least five years, and probably more."<p>The SSD in the machine will probably need to be replaced.<p>It would be nice to know how much ram he had in the new vs old machine. I bet the SSD + more RAM was probably where most of the performance gain came from. He might have seen similar performance gain by just upgrading those two components.
What I find interesting is that the best programmers among my friends usually have very outdated systems. They can do anything with a computer and can afford top of the line stuff, and still have over 5 year old hardware.<p>I was like that too and then got a fairly high end laptop with a fast 7200 rpm harddrive and 4 gigs of RAM which made the concept of "swaptime" when booting up my programming environment or compiling or doing both programming, music and graphics - a mere memory.<p>I've never been more creative.
not a good use of money just so you can have 200 browser tabs open -- you can only look at one at a time anyway, for example. It's a bit like noticing your house is overflowing with a trash and deciding that the solution is to buy 50 large trash cans, placing several in each room of your house. rather than, you now, create less trash in the first place and/or take it out more frequently. :)
The same thing happened to me when I bought a new laptop. I realized how terribly slow was my previous one. I also changed my priorities. Now I value bigger ram and CPU performance instead of Graphics performance. Maybe that's because now I have a constantly running VM with linux in background and don't play games anymore.