Re: Re: Information gathering exercise

> 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.
>
True. I've been offered to exchange my machine for one with Windows 7 to
replace Vista, not going to.
Would take me several days to get it set up correctly, which according to
company policy would mean a weekend spent working as we're not allowed to
do that in company time.

> 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.
>
Would love to see that, but never have.

> 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).
>
Typically a 5 year old clunker built by some of the dev team out of
leftover parts from broken down computers.
Sometimes something purchased on project budget at the local computer
store from money left over somewhere.
Best I've seen was the database server of the test environment doubling as
version control and build server.

>> 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.
>
Typical here (from what I've seen in a variety of companies mostly in the
financial sector) is for dev teams to have old equipment.
4-5 years old is the norm.
IF new equipment does become available (like where I now work, where
everyone got a new system 2 years ago, from the CEO on down, and all
identical) it's usually a midrange system from one of the major brands
(IBM, Compaq, hardly ever Dell).
Certainly nothing highend like OP was looking for, nor the power machines
several others have listed as being typical in their workplaces.

>
>> 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.
>
A 286 with 1MB RAM can be used as a perfectly good source editor for
typical source files.
I wouldn't want to, not now that I've become accustomed to dual core
systems with several GB of RAM, but I've done it.

Someone (can't remember who) once said that developers should never have
more powerful machines than their typical end users so they know the
performance those end users are likely to encounter when testing their own
creations.
There's something very true in that statement.

> Someone doing Sharepoint development is going to need much better
> hardware than someone developing for embedded Linux.  One size does
> not fit all.
>
Certainly true. That's why I did specify that if he were a graphics artist
or game developer he might want something bigger than what I'm using for
my JEE/BPEL work.

> 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.
>
I can't imagine how a 2.4GB dual core with 2GB RAM and dual 22" screens is
going to be so slow it's wasting a lot of his time waiting for it.
That's the point I'm trying to get across, not that underpowered machines
may harm job performance or enjoyment.

>
>> (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.
>
>
Not ironic. He's got reason to need bleeding edge hardware as his job
places high strain on his machine and would indeed benefit from bigger
hardware.
But most coders hardly make their CPUs tick over, let alone their
videocards, except maybe during after-hours Quake sessions.

>
>> 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.
>
Given his specs that system seemed more like 2-3 years old rather than 7.
I know it's better than what I was using 3 years ago.

> 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.
>
Correct. Though it does some into the discussion. If your average user is
using something in the class he's using, maybe he should not be using
something better.
We have a 3 year replacement cycle on hardware. That's the time it takes
for it to be written off economically (law doesn't even allow a shorter
time here).
So maybe I'll get a new machine next year, if the economy picks up and/or
it's calculated to be more economical to replace what we have now rather
than to continue replacing failing machines (batteries and DVD drives are
failing at a rather high rate) that go out of warranty.