Re: Re: Information gathering exercise

Hi!

Well, according to the info I have had so far the median system
described by my peers is  4 cores, 4GB RAM and 160GB HD.

I am thinking about taking us down the DVCS route for low-cost,
simpler branching than we have in Subversion, so that was what was
feeding my 500GB HD thoughts.

Regards,

Gordon

On 25 February 2010 05:15, James Ashley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jeroen Wenting
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hello, Jeroen.  On Monday, February 22, 2010, at 12:14:14 AM, you
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He should get used to having less powerful machines at work than he's
>>>> used
>>>> to having at home for his gaming and internet use.
>>>> That's almost always been the case for the last decade or more, at least
>>>> for technical/dev staff (see my earlier reply for what I've seen
>>>> happening
>>>> for upgrade cycles in several places I've worked).
>
> I'm going to have to stick my $0.02 in.  I didn't comment to that
> message, but those upgrade cycles just don't match anything I've ever
> seen.  It's been my experience that dev teams usually get new
> computers, rotating through some level of seniority.  Most of us don't
> *want* to change, because it wastes so much time getting our
> individual development environment set back up.
>
> The "old" computer seems to get rotated down to whoever [on the dev
> team] needs it the most, and his computer either gets put out to
> pasture or handed down to someone like the CEO.
>
> And for something like a centralized build server?  I've never seen a
> company skimp on one of those.  (Well, I have...until we pointed out
> that a build was taking 6 hours).
>
>> You know full well that the machines he uses are not only above average
>> for what's being used in the industry as a whole
>
> I'm tempted to get snarky over this comment, but I won't.
>
> Maybe in the "industry as a whole" in your country.  Or maybe for some
> specific industry?  But my experience hasn't matched yours at all.
> I've rarely had cutting-edge gaming-level hardware, but I usually have
> something fairly comparable to the latest $500 offering from Dell.
>
>
>
>
>> but more than adequate
>> for just about any professional level development
>
>
> That's a complete crock.  It depends on what kind of development
> you're doing and what environment you're doing it in. For that matter,
> it can depend on the size of your source code files.
>
> Someone doing Sharepoint development is going to need much better
> hardware than someone developing for embedded Linux.  One size does
> not fit all.
>
> If your computer's so slow that it wastes a lot of your time, then
> there's a good chance upgrading it will pay for itself very quickly.
> Especially if you take things like "flow" into account.  Of course,
> you have to be a good enough communicator to teach your boss about
> flow, because s/he's probably never run across the phrase.
>
>
>> (unless MAYBE he's a
>> graphics artist and 3D modeller for a major game studio, in which case a
>> quad code iMac Pro would serve him better).
>
> Ironically enough, our 3D modeller does get frequent upgrades to
> bleeding edge tech (I know...big shock).  But he's a Windows kind of
> guy.
>
> Then again, we're nothing like a major game studio.
>
>
>
>> I see his question as similar to having a 2 year old BMW 3 series car from
>> the company and complaining you're not getting a brand new Ferrari every 6
>> months.
>
> Except that he admitted his computer was cutting edge 7 human years ago.
>
> In computer years, that's something like forever.
>
> Now, on the flip side of this, I *don't* think developers should be
> using the latest and greatest hardware.  I suspect part of the reason
> so much modern software is so slow and bloated is that the developers
> have hardware that's so much better than the average end-user.  But
> that's a different conversation.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>