|
I think that may better to work with
>2GHz and 512 MB RAM
~CodeTheDreams~
|
|
|
|
|
Running a PII-400 box with win2k. .NET works fine, but I still have VS6 on there since Devstudio 6 runs with a lot less overhead for c++ programming than dev7.
Web development,COM component development, VB all work great.
I'm seriously thinking about going for a mobo/cpu upgrade and a new HD rather than buy a whole new system. Even then I don't see the need for much more than 2GHz at this point.
 Is it just me, or are the CP developers in this survey a lot more thrifty than Dell/Gateway/Compaq/MS would like us to be?
|
|
|
|
|
You won't save much by upgrading. Might as well just buy a new system. You can even consider of setting up a network in your home with old + new PC connected.
|
|
|
|
|
Dont bother Eric,
I do not know what you tested in VC, but if you work on a bigger project, say over 10MB source, than try you to rebuild all 
I had some months ago a dual PII 466 - used with above environment, and it worked just great, until I needed to rebuild more than 50% of the source.
Howrver, I also think that the Idea in the above reply sounds greatest 
Ilia.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Legacy hardware has its uses.
I've made a habit of keeping at least one other box around somewhere to use as kind of testbed for running software in older environments. Right now I have a P133/Win98 box and a P200/win98 box running alongside my existing development machine. I use these to test out Access97 (::shudder: work I do for some clients. They mimic the production environment almost perfectly, so in a way I have to place a value on my legacy gear that others probably wouldn't.
With PC prices at an all-time low, I'm definately going to pick up a newer box and network it to the existing (old) box.. then it'll be my 400Mhz testbed!
(Even better would be zapping it with linux and install mono, so I can do some cross-platform .NET development  )
- Eric
Calling a function is like tying your shoe. Remoting a function is like tying someone else's shoe... while they're running around... in China.
|
|
|
|
|
>>I've made a habit of keeping at least one other box around somewhere to use as kind of testbed for running software in older environments.
That is what VMWare is for. 
I just went the bigger box direction, installed VMWare, and now testing on W98 or W2000 is a matter of copying a .5GB file to reset to "clean machine" state. This is my current list of VMs and I can reset any of them to "clean" in a matter of seconds:
- Win95
- Win2000
- Win98
- Win98HiResWithMSI
- Win98HiResWithMSIandIE6
When emulating OSs on a single box for developer convenience, there has never been a better reason to buy a bigger box. Also, memory and a fast HD has proven to be way more important than absolute CPU speed.
A super hi-res capable monitor is never a bad thing with VS .NET either.
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen some really impressive things done with VMware. Personally, I like the idea of using it just for side-stepping problems you get with Windows and registry bloat: Just go back to your baseline system image if you don't like shareware X, or COM component Y.
There is a deeper issue with using legacy systems though.
Personally, I've found the degree of backwards compatibility from win2K (can't speak for XP yet) down through good 'ol 95 (w/patches) to be solid to trust my development environment for most of my debugging. VM's aside, you still can't quite duplicate the performance characteristics of an older machine on a newer, faster one.
Granted, VMware seems to be a solid way to go for testing OS-level compatibility, but I still need the old, grungy, sometimes-not-so-reliable, p133s running win98 (w/registry bloat and the rest) to truely see what my users are going to experience when they run an app.
Besides, all those monitors and boxes everywhere.. it looks way more impressive than just a single machine. 
- Eric
Calling a function is like tying your shoe. Remoting a function is like tying someone else's shoe... while they're running around... in China.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a dual 877 at work and a dual 2 GHz at home.
However, key point is that the work machine has 15K rpm SCSI drive. Our build tree is about 2GB in debug mode and without that HD I would be scuppered. I've compared build times at home and work and there isn't much to compare under VC6 - mainly due to that nice SCSI HD.
Dual processor boxes are a MUST if you compile a lot - and it would be really cool if VC supported multiple compilation threads...
A good code project article would be about techniques for managing LARGE build trees under VC (70 projects +...). Has anybody else noticed how the workspace dies after about 2 weeks ?
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be something like a consensus that more than 2 gig is not really necessary. How will the processor-oligopoly sell us 4 gig with internal multithreading and 64 bits next year?
Most of the users here have already decided that they would not even need machines that are available now, save those that are to come.
Maybe the Wintel is right now busy embedding sleep()-statements inside the Windows-code? Just to be sure?
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
I love having our 430,000+ program compile in 7 minutes versus on my new P4/2.4ghz compared to the 25 minutes it took on my P2/350.
The survey we're talking about now is what the *minimum* spec would be if we would build a machine right now...
------- signature starts
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio.
------- signature ends
|
|
|
|
|
Well, for complete rebuilds we have a dedicted build-computer, So I get away with one or two "Rebuild all" a day. Coffee break, anyone?
Or what about Surfing to CP?
And about the survey, I have read it like: "What would you buy if you wanted a development-computer right now. That was how I answered.
But I have a known bug in the comprehension of longer texts without many pictures
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
1) I too thought it was minimum spec. 2) The Pentium IV (Octium?) price/performance sweet spot is about 2.4 GHz.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a dual processor system?
|
|
|
|
|
Nah... Honestly I'm pretty happy with my current compile times on my 2.2 Gig machine at work... but gaming can always and only get better with a faster processor.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I work on a dual almost-gigahertz here at work. And I am happy with the turnover times for compiling.
That is what I meant: It is nice to have a faster computer, but there is no longer a NEED to have it - at least at work. 3D-Games are different, both in usang and in writing/testing(I think).
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right of course... but I still want my PC to be as fast as possible. I'm an extremely demanding user... and I work so much that there's a blur between the line or work and play for me. My main development machine is often also my main gaming machine. To keep things moving forward at work, we sometimes break for 30 minutes or so to play some Battlefield 1942 or Unreal Tournament 2003.. etc. But, in general, you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow - playing at work. Here we have even "solitaire" uninstalled from our devel-computers. But then we have open Internet (and CP is out there).
At home, the most demanding game I have right now is Medieval:TotalWar.
And I still love Civilisation III. But maybe I am some sort of geek with this.;)
Ok, this was enough "Lounge-talk" for today!
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
It will be the job of we programmers to create code so slow, bloated, and clunky that the extra speed will become essential. Get to work!
"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art."
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Shannon wrote:
It will be the job of we programmers to create code so slow, bloated, and clunky that the extra speed will become essential. Get to work!
That is easy enough to do, just write Thick Clients in Java using Swing <grin>
|
|
|
|
|
....Dell or another PC manuf. company actually read the Optional Answer list. We would get a mother of a PC....
Dual 21" monitors, DVD-RWs, Tail Fins, quad processors, a cpu discombobulator, built-in coffee cup holder, Big Breasted Blonde Bimbos Begging for Boffing By Bodacious Boners and a Shiny Case
Plus along with free delivery you'd get a free blowjob and free sex from someone elses mom......
"Where would you rather be today?"
|
|
|
|
|
Could you imagine explaining the need for such a computer to your wife?
"Dear, you might want to leave the house today, maybe go shopping."
"Why honey?"
"Uhhhh...big computer delivery, yeah, thats it..."
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my previous computer was a P3-800Mhz running Win2K, with 512MB RAM, 240 GB of disk space and a 19'' monitor. I've used that to develop web apps (ASP.NET/VB.NET), all kinds of Win apps (whether single or multi threaded, database frontends, network apps, CGIs, Fast CGIs, hardware control apps for card embossers and check printers - all using VB.NET, VB6 and Delphi 3), ASP and HTML sites, and finally to open telnet sessions to a Stratus box running VOS to develop using C, PL/I and COBOL (yeah, the real dinosaurs).
I bought a new one a few weeks ago (P4-2.4 Ghz, 1GB RAM, RAID controller, 0.3 TB disk space  , kept the same monitor and Win2K). However, I have to admit that I could get my job done pretty well with my old PC, plus I could run Counter Strike and TFC perfectly. I got the new one just to satisfy my geek factor.
One thing that I found out over the years is that it's ok to have the fastest/best PC around to do your development (whether "best" means a fast or dual CPU, lightning-fast hard disk I/O and 21'' or dual monitors - it all depends on what you're working on)...BUT at some point you really need to test on the actual PC or range of machines that your application is going to be used on in the real world.
For example, your spec might be for an application that will read a proprietary flat file 2GB large and create an excel spreadsheet out of it along with an HTML report page, and all that is going to run on Bank X (where you know that they'll install it in a PII-400 box). In this case, I doesn't really mater if your app takes 30 second to finish on your dev box if it takes half an hour on the production box (in this case, you may have to go back to the code and make a better algorithm that will work decently on real-world PC's - unless of course you have already put in the extra effort to do that). Also, it doesn't matter if your HTML report looks really cool on your screen with 1600x1200 analysis displayed by Internet Explorer, because some poor chaps at the customer's site are going to view it under 640x480 or 800x600, using both IE and NetScape.
To summarize: yes, as far as developers are concerned, the fastest a PC is, the better. We just need to recognize the geek factor inside ourselves and appreciate the fact that sometimes we can do the job without a P-7 35Ghz box. And IMHO it's also important to be aware of the capabilities of most hardware used in the real world.
Cheers,
NTG
"Feel the force...read the source"
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Sincerely
AW
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
