Re: How to choose hardware for C# (Windows desktop) developer?

On 13.06.2020 19:35, Paul wrote:
>Egor wrote:
>> Software:
>> 1. Visual Studio.
>> 2. Windows 10.
>> Main answer in subject.
>
>I think the 2019 description is being somewhat imaginative,
>the 2015 description somewhat silly (low estimate).
>
>https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/releases/2019/system-requirements#visual-studio-2019-system-requirements
>
>    "Hardware
>
>     1.8 GHz or faster processor. Quad-core or better recommended   <=== 4 core CPU
>
>     2 GB of RAM; 8 GB of RAM recommended
>       (2.5 GB minimum if running on a virtual machine)
>
>     Hard disk space: Minimum of 800MB up to 210 GB of available space,
>                      depending on features installed; typical installations
>                      require 20-50 GB of free space.
>
>     Hard disk speed: to improve performance, install Windows and Visual Studio
>                      on a solid state drive (SSD).
>
>     Video card that supports a minimum display resolution of 720p (1280 by 720);
>                      Visual Studio will work best at a resolution of
>                      WXGA (1366 by 768) or higher.
>
>https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/vs2015-sysrequirements-vs#vs
>
>     Visual Studio Community 2015 with Update 3
>     Hardware Requirements
>
>     1.6 GHz or faster processor
>     1 GB of RAM (1.5 GB if running on a virtual machine)
>     4 GB of available hard disk space (5400 RPM hard disk drive)
>     DirectX 9-capable video card (1024 x 768 or higher resolution)
>
>*******
>
>Just by specifying Windows 10, a quad core CPU is a good minimum. This
>gives the OS three cores to waste scanning things, while you get your
>work done with the remaining core.
>
>The amount of RAM, is likely to be up to the platform limit. If
>you're working on Chromium or Firefox for example (a team project
>with a lot of source), the builds may require 32GB to complete in
>a competitive time with your peer developers. Some teams do recompiles
>several times a day, at 20 minutes per run.
>
>If you are writing 60 line "Hello World" programs in C#, then a *lot*
>less resources are needed for that. Even a 4GB RAM machine should be
>plenty, if the linking stage is not very demanding. When you build
>Firefox, it's usually the linking of XUL.dll that requires peak
>RAM usage, as every object file is loaded into the computer while
>the link takes place. Nobody optimized the build in a way that
>reduces peak RAM behavior on that one.
>
>A basic computer purchased this year, should have most of what
>you need. Just don't buy the cheapest laptop (with 1 core or
>2 core CPU). The CPU should have 4 cores, so you will not
>feel cheated out of your money. You do not want to buy a
>computer, only to throw it away because it's inadequate.
>
>Computers don't always come with SSD drives. SSD drives can
>add to the price of the purchase. When fetching #include files,
>an SSD containing the IDE might help with the load time
>for the files. The System Read cache (part of your computer RAM)
>can cache the include files, so on the second build attempt,
>the "speed" comes from RAM rather than the SSD.
>
>Where the SSD helps, is with Windows 10 boot times. Again,
>if you buy a computer in 2020, with Windows 10 on it, the
>developers at Microsoft are using SSDs on their machines,
>and they don't care that the computer you bought with a
>rotating HDD is slow.
>
>To boot Windows 10, that's about 45GB of SSD right there.
>(You can dial the partition to 32GB if you want, but then
>you'll be cramped on program install space at some point.)
>If we assumed the absurd amount of 50GB of space on the SSD
>for the IDE, the total could be handled by a 128GB drive.
>Just the other day, I saw a WDC 1TB drive (8 times that size)
>for $100 USD, to give some idea how big a cheap SSD you can get.
>I use 256GB SSDs and have one 512GB SSD here. The 256GB has
>been fine as a Win10 choice (one has Visual Studio Community Edition
>on it, the others don't).
>
>Laptops can be power and cooling limited. This processor for example,
>is 15 watts, and runs at 1.8GHz clock rate on all cores (4C 8T). When
>lightly loaded, a single core can run at 4.6GHz. Either a 4C 4T
>or a 4C 8T (hyperthreaded) CPU meet the "quad core" recommendation.
>If you shop for a desktop (tower) computer, some of those the
>CPU can use 160W (ten times as much power), and the designs are not
>thermally limited like a laptop would be. But a laptop is a bit
>more portable (a "workstation" for example, is a laptop which
>is hard on batteries, and such laptops like to be plugged in
>at times during the work day). Workstation laptops are
>thicker designs (they're not the thin and light kind) but
>they have more room for high-end components inside. Workstations
>get part of their size, from the powerful 3D graphics card.
>Software developers, unless they're working on CUDA or OpenCL,
>don't generally need such powerful graphics components. An
>Intel Iris integrated graphics is plenty of horsepower, even
>for a lightweight OpenCL run.
>
>https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/149091/intel-core-i7-8565u-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html
>
>*******
>
>This laptop fails, because it's a 2 core CPU. $800 in CDN dollars.
>
>https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/acer-aspire-5-15-6-laptop-silver-intel-ci5-1035g1-256gb-ssd-8gb-ram-windows-10/14655794
>
>This one has a quad core, with an IPS screen so you can actually
>work on it. IPS screens are superior to TN (twisted nematic)
>screens for long work hours. I'm typing on an IPS screen.
>IPS screen, you can move your head side-to-side, without the
>colors changing too much. This one is $1000 in CDN dollars.
>
>https://www.cdw.com/product/acer-swift-3-sf314-55-58p9-14-core-i5-8265u-8-gb-ram-256-gb-ssd/5537706
>
>My total hardware outlay costs might be cheaper, if I got
>a desktop machine instead. Or, if I assembled a computer
>with a screwdriver, buying retail parts.
>
>These ideas may be discouraging you, as the price is not
>conducive to entry-level usage. The quad core thing is
>an unfortunate side effect of Windows 10, rather than
>Visual Studio. I'm typing on a dual core machine, but
>I'm also not running Windows 10 on it (the Win10 SSD for
>this machine, sits right next to me, unplugged!). My other
>machine is a 6C 12T CPU with 64GB RAM, and I've done Chromium
>and Firefox builds on it. Yes, that's overkill, but
>you do have room to work, and the thing will rail on
>all 12 hyperthreaded cores and draw 180W during a build.
>The people at Google and Mozilla, they tend to get
>20 core computers with about as much RAM, and their builds
>happen in less than half the time of mine. To do faster builds,
>I split the RAM in two, use 32GB for a RAMdisk, and use
>the other 32GB for the compilers to use.
>
>You have the option of installing Visual Studio Community Edition
>(Free) on your current computer, and you can do a Hello World
>program on that and get a feeling for how sluggish it is.
>Windows 10, if installed on a gutless computer, can suck the
>life out of it, and that's why I cannot exactly endorse
>dual core garbage laptops with Windows 10 on them.
>
>A quad core is a better choice in my opinion. You won't have
>to throw it in the landfill because it annoys you :-)
>
>Windows 10 is the problem, not Visual Studio particularly, for
>small project usage. The SSD size should not be the minimum
>one, or you might (eventually) regret that. Maybe some machines
>come with 128GB, but a 256GB is a good minimum size because
>of the Visual Studio footprint. Since you're just doing C#
>development, you don't have to install every subsystem that
>Visual Studio has to offer. I don't have any web crap
>added to mine for example. You generally don't volunteer to
>install all of it, unless you have storage space to waste for
>no reason (I've installed Visual Studio community editions
>a number of times, and never had regrets about my
>initial configuration choices later). The features in it
>that sound silly, are silly.
>
>    Paul

I'm live in Russia, but thank you, Paul.