|
Vista!!
The question should have been divided in two: one for machines with Vista, others for those without. I had a machine with XP an 1 GB worked very nice. When I put Vista on it, I had to upgrade it to 3 GB (which is what all machines at my office have).
|
|
|
|
|
Thats true...
But developing on a Vista machine ...!? If using VS 2005 or even 2008 this works but when you have to support legacy applications (like me supporting Pocket PC apps developed with eMbedded Visual C++ 3.0 you wouldn't use Vista for it  )
|
|
|
|
|
Thats the easiest way I agree, but Vista is the platform to develop today's software. To develop with a legacy environment I rather do that under a virtual machine with the correct envorinment and try to migrate that ASAP to the newest technology I can.
However, if its about hardware, thats not always possible, so it might be the only way.
|
|
|
|
|
home:
Primary workstation: 2gb
laptop : 1gb
work:
cube - 4gb
wokstation in lab - 2gb
laptop - 512mb 
of course the only one that actually matters is the workstation in my cube as all the other workstations or laptops are used as platforms to remote desktop into it 
Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer.
-Fred Brooks
|
|
|
|
|
Using 1.5GB with VS2008. More would be nice and possible in the near future.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Because it's sales that sell the product that make the company money isn't it? The fact that it takes developers longer to write the thing in the first place when short of resources doesn't enter the managers minds. 4 years ago I was given a 486 to work on, I nearly brought my 2 year old laptop to work as it was better, I left after 9 months.
I'm so glad I work where I do now. 4GB RAM, 3Ghz Core 2 Duo, 64bit OS & ~0.5TB HD space!
|
|
|
|
|
UKCodeMonkey wrote: 4 years ago I was given a 486 to work on,
That deserves notice. What OS were you running?
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: UKCodeMonkey wrote:
4 years ago I was given a 486 to work on,
That deserves notice. What OS were you running?
Windows 2000, and I was coding in VC6! Saying it was slow was an understatement.
I'm now on Vista 64 coding C# in Visual Studio 2008, much faster machine, better IDE. I'm much happier where I am now than where I was.
|
|
|
|
|
UKCodeMonkey wrote: cpkilekofp wrote:
UKCodeMonkey wrote:
4 years ago I was given a 486 to work on,
That deserves notice. What OS were you running?
Windows 2000, and I was coding in VC6! Saying it was slow was an understatement.
Whoa! I'd completely forgotten W2K could run on the 486 (I think it must've been the last OS to do so). Reminds me to ask what hardware I'd be using in my next interview.
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: Whoa! I'd completely forgotten W2K could run on the 486 (I think it must've been the last OS to do so). Reminds me to ask what hardware I'd be using in my next interview.
Well, I wouldn't exactly say run, crawl more like
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Gates once said: "You will never need more than 64MB of RAM"
and shortly after that his software was the first that needed more.
VS 2015 will probably need 40GB of RAM...
modified 7-Dec-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Even worse I think that was actually 640 KB!
|
|
|
|
|
 I'm pretty sure it was 64MB..
Just before Windows 98 came out.
And then came Win98 that needed minimum 128MB 
modified 7-Dec-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That was much earlier, back in the MS-DOS days. Famous quote "640K ought to be enough for anybody!"
|
|
|
|
|
Bilby wrote: Famous quote "640K ought to be enough for anybody!"
What's less known though, is that he never actually said it..
|
|
|
|
|
In the dos days it was 640K.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Good old DOS...
modified 7-Dec-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I assure you that I was running Win98 on a 486DX4/100 with 8 MB of RAM (which is below the stated minimum requirements). In fact, 24 MB of RAM was the "recommended" amount.
Reference: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/182751[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Barbour wrote: I assure you that I was running Win98 on a 486DX4/100 with 8 MB of RAM (which is below the stated minimum requirements). In fact, 24 MB of RAM was the "recommended" amount.
Kids today have no perspective.
Faith is a fine invention
For gentlemen who see;
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency!
-Emily Dickinson
|
|
|
|
|
i can see 40gb of ram.. only because there will be some kind of large neural network predicting the code you're going to write. Pretty much programming in the future will be writing a paragraph of what you want in non technical terms, and the neural network will generate it.
of course that would be no fun
Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer.
-Fred Brooks
|
|
|
|
|
Nikola Knezevic wrote: Bill Gates once said: "You will never need more than 64MB of RAM"
and shortly after that his software was the first that needed more.
The correct amount of memory from the quote (and I remember the quote) was 640KB. PCs which could host and use an entire megabyte or more had just come on the market (the Compaq 386).
|
|
|
|
|
|
is that 64bit? how are you making full use of the 4gb
Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer.
-Fred Brooks
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is only WinXP 32Bit - so I can get use of about 3,2 GByte
|
|
|
|
|
My host/physical computer has 4GB.
And I am using Virtual Machine (Sun xVM Virtual Box, free) to setup the development environment.
The Virtual Box has 1-2GB depends on the project size.
haha
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)