Actually, far more important than the speed/responsiveness of a dual-proc machine is the ability for a mulit-cpu machine to reveal threading/deadlock/race condition bugs which rarely, if ever, surface on single-processor machines. This is extremely important if you expect that your software will ever be run by someone with a SMP machine.
I've seen lots of organizations which write COM objects for IIS servers. I've seen these same organizations have nightmarish production roll-outs because all of the development and QA machines were single-proc, and all of the production machines were SMP.
I guess it all depends on how much stuff costs to a certain extent.
Like "markkuk" says I'd rather spend the money on a 19" (or bigger) display"
My arguement is that you should look at how you will increase your production with the spare cash you have.
I find good large twin monitors, a decent keyboard, and a great chair actually make me work more efficiently.
I don't really believe if I upgraded my current RAM and CPU I would actually get work done any faster.
On the other hand you must look at how long will the current specs you buy be appropriate for.
In 5 yrs time a 4Ghz processor will be absolute crud compared to the 30Ghz stuff that will probably be about then.
But quite often I'm sure a lot of people are upgrading more because of what the guy in the next cubicle has rather than using any fiscal logic.
why everybody does not choose the quickest machine?
"And the carpet needs a haircut, and the spotlight looks like a prison break
And the telephone's out of cigarettes, and the balcony is on the make
And the piano has been drinking, the piano has been drinking...not me...not me-Tom Waits
Fast enough for the job is all you need. I basically chose my current spec ( 2 gHz, 512 MB RAM ) as minimum, because I won't go backwards, but I must admit that the geek factor is the only thing that keeps me upgrading, my AMD 700 with 700 odd MB of RAM ran .NET just fine.
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer.
- Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael
P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not
as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
A big monitor is usefull, when developing (even for laptops).
Because additionally to the gui of the programm you are developing you need access to the toolbars of your developer-ide, dont you?
# THIS CODE AND INFORMATION ARE PROVIDED
# "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
# KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
# INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
# AND/OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Thats why a dual monitor system is a must have, espcially if you are developing custom paint code in your application or with DirectX, it will allow you to step through your code, without interupting your program.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
kokie wrote: however, that is not good,if the machine is for developing software,since it can encourage the writting of bad code.
Only if the developer is stupid.
Just because my software should work on a PII 200 Mhz running Win98 does not mean I want to run VC on such a computer. My whole life would be waiting for it to compile...
Test on slower computers, and develop on the fastest
I follow a simple rule. Never have a faster machine at the office than at home! Why? Cuz getting used to a fast machine paid by someone else makes me want to spend my own money to match it. If you aren't using it you don't miss it.